[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2101-2214]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             FULL-YEAR CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2011

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 92 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 1.

                              {time}  1330


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 1) making appropriations for the Department of Defense 
and the other departments and agencies of the Government for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes, with Mr. Price 
of Georgia (Acting Chair) in the chair.

[[Page 2102]]

  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 223, printed in the 
Congressional Record, offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell) had been postponed and the bill had been read through page 
263, line 9.
  Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on 
those amendments printed in the Congressional Record on which further 
proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Rooney of Florida.
  Amendment No. 95 by Mr. Jones of North Carolina.
  Amendment No. 237 by Mr. Holt of New Jersey.
  Amendment No. 97 by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon.
  Amendment No. 153 by Mr. Michaud of Maine.
  Amendment No. 368 by Mr. Flake of Arizona.
  Amendment No. 260 by Mr. Latta of Ohio.
  Amendment No. 125, as modified, by Mr. Weiner of New York.
  Amendment No. 110 by Mr. Duncan of South Carolina.
  Amendment No. 192 by Mrs. Biggert of Illinois.
  Amendment No. 395 by Mr. Inslee of Washington.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Tonko of New York.
  Amendment No. 259 by Mr. Latta of Ohio.
  Amendment No. 98 by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon.
  Amendment No. 223 by Mr. Pascrell of New Jersey.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Rooney

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Rooney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233, 
noes 198, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 1, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 46]

                               AYES--233

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Altmire
     Amash
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Cicilline
     Clay
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Frank (MA)
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Harman
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Labrador
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McKinley
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ross (AR)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sherman
     Sires
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tipton
     Towns
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Waxman
     Webster
     Weiner
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (FL)
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yoder

                               NOES--198

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Bass (NH)
     Berg
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boswell
     Brooks
     Bucshon
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Cantor
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Davis (KY)
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Emerson
     Engel
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck
     Heller
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Manzullo
     Marino
     Markey
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pence
     Peters
     Pitts
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Wasserman Schultz
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Watt
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Giffords
       


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1349

  Messrs. ENGEL and GRIMM changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. AL GREEN of Texas, ELLISON, Ms. DeGETTE and Ms. WILSON of 
Florida changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 95 Offered by Mr. Jones

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Jones) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.

[[Page 2103]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 135, 
noes 294, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 47]

                               AYES--135

     Amash
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Bono Mack
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Campbell
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carney
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Goodlatte
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Hall
     Hastings (FL)
     Heller
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Mack
     Markey
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Posey
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rehberg
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Royce
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--294

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     DeGette
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harman
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hirono
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wu
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cummings
     Giffords
     Latham
     Turner


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1353

  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 47, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 47, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.


                 Amendment No. 237 Offered by Mr. Holt

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Holt) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 133, 
noes 299, not voting 1, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 48]

                               AYES--133

     Amash
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rohrabacher
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--299

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy

[[Page 2104]]


     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harman
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Giffords
       


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1358

  Mr. CARNEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 97 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 136, 
noes 296, not voting 1, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 49]

                               AYES--136

     Ackerman
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hanna
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--296

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Webster
     Weiner
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Giffords
       


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1402

  Messrs. GARAMENDI, NEAL, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, and Mr. RUSH changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.

[[Page 2105]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 153 Offered by Mr. Michaud

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Michaud) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 305, 
noes 127, not voting 1, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 50]

                               AYES--305

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Berg
     Berkley
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harman
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross (AR)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Webster
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--127

     Adams
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Culberson
     Davis (IL)
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Edwards
     Ellmers
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Franks (AZ)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gonzalez
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hartzler
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Honda
     Huelskamp
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lankford
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lucas
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     Meehan
     Moran
     Napolitano
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Palazzo
     Pence
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Ribble
     Rivera
     Roby
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (WI)
     Schakowsky
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Velazquez
     Walsh (IL)
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner
     West
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Giffords
       


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1407

  Messrs. GOSAR, COLE, and HERGER changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. AL GREEN of Texas and WU changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 368 Offered by Mr. Flake

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Flake) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 262, 
noes 169, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 51]

                               AYES--262

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Doggett
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harman
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney

[[Page 2106]]


     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Waters
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--169

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lujan
     Marino
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McIntyre
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (PA)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rivera
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tonko
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bishop (UT)
     Giffords
       


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1410

  Mr. LEWIS of California changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 260 Offered by Mr. Latta

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Latta) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184, 
noes 247, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 52]

                               AYES--184

     Adams
     Akin
     Altmire
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cuellar
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleming
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Griffith (VA)
     Guinta
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keating
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latta
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richmond
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuler
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Waters
     Watt
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--247

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bucshon
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dold
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Harman
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKeon
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)

[[Page 2107]]


     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bishop (UT)
     Giffords
       


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1413

  Ms. WATERS changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


         Amendment No. 125, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Weiner

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Weiner), as modified, on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228, 
noes 203, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 53]

                               AYES--228

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Canseco
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kissell
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nunnelee
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Richardson
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schilling
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--203

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Benishek
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dreier
     Duncan (SC)
     Edwards
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Hall
     Harman
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Holt
     Honda
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lucas
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McKeon
     McKinley
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Turner
     Walberg
     Walsh (IL)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wu
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bishop (UT)
     Giffords


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1418

  Messrs. KEATING, GRIFFIN of Arkansas and CANSECO changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


       Amendment No. 110 Offered by Mr. Duncan of South Carolina

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Duncan) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 259, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 54]

                               AYES--171

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Culberson
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Lummis

[[Page 2108]]


     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Walberg
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--259

     Ackerman
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harman
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nunnelee
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rivera
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Giffords


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1422

  Mr. FLORES changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 192 Offered by Mrs. Biggert

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois 
(Mrs. Biggert) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170, 
noes 262, not voting 1, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 55]

                               AYES--170

     Adams
     Akin
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Denham
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleming
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Holt
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latta
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Turner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--262

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harman
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nunnelee
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters

[[Page 2109]]


     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Giffords
       


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1424

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 395 Offered by Mr. Inslee

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Inslee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 159, 
noes 273, not voting 1, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 56]

                               AYES--159

     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono Mack
     Boswell
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harman
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rogers (MI)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--273

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Giffords
       


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1428

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Tonko

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Tonko) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 208, 
noes 223, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 57]

                               AYES--208

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell

[[Page 2110]]


     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harman
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huizenga (MI)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--223

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Giffords
     Miller (NC)
       


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1431

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 259 Offered by Mr. Latta

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Latta) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 137, 
noes 293, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 58]

                               AYES--137

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Culberson
     DesJarlais
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Flake
     Fleming
     Flores
     Franks (AZ)
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Hall
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Latta
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mulvaney
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Paul
     Pence
     Peters
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--293

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Gosar
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harman
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hultgren
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary

[[Page 2111]]


     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Denham
     Giffords
     Sullivan


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1434

  Mr. DeFAZIO changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 98 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 130, 
noes 301, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 59]

                               AYES--130

     Amash
     Baldwin
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Berkley
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crowley
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Farr
     Filner
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hayworth
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holt
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurt
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Keating
     Kingston
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Mulvaney
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Richardson
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Westmoreland
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--301

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Cicilline
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harman
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck
     Heller
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     Weiner
     Welch
     West
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Giffords
     Roybal-Allard


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1438

  Mr. NADLER and Mrs. MALONEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. PASTOR of Arizona and LYNCH changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 223 Offered by Mr. Pascrell

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pascrell) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 318, 
noes 113, not voting 2, as follows:

[[Page 2112]]



                             [Roll No. 60]

                               AYES--318

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harman
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marino
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--113

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Bilbray
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Burton (IN)
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Carter
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dreier
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Hall
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Huelskamp
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Markey
     McClintock
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Ribble
     Roby
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Smith (TX)
     Speier
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Giffords
     Herger


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1442

  Messrs. GARDNER and RIGELL changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this deeply 
flawed Republican funding resolution.
  The bill is a reckless and sweeping attack on the public health and 
environmental protections that keep our air safe to breathe and our 
water safe to drink.
  One of the most egregious assaults on public health and the 
environment in the legislation is section 1746. This provision guts the 
Clean Air Act and bars the Environmental Protection Agency from 
addressing the grave threat to public health and the environment posed 
by carbon pollution, and it does so while destroying thousands of jobs.
  The science is clear and the evidence is overwhelming. According to 
the National Academy of Sciences and the premier scientific 
organizations of all the world's major economies, carbon pollution is 
changing the climate and endangering the environment. But section 1746 
prohibits EPA from taking commonsense, reasonable measures to address 
this threat.
  The Clean Air Act currently requires that new source plants, new 
power plants, new oil refineries, and other major new sources of carbon 
emissions take steps to reduce their carbon emissions. This requirement 
makes sense because it is easier for facilities to plan for emission 
reductions before construction than to install retrofits afterwards. 
EPA says sources should be able to comply just by being energy 
efficient. Section 1746 would prevent EPA from implementing this 
commonsense requirement.
  EPA has also indicated it plans to set minimum Federal standards for 
the two largest sources of carbon pollution: power plants and oil 
refineries. This section would prevent EPA from even proposing these 
standards.
  Instead of gutting the Clean Air Act, the top priority for this 
Congress should be getting Americans back to work, but section 1746 
does exactly the opposite. It imposes a de facto construction ban on 
many areas of the country. The Clean Air Act requires the largest new 
or expanding facilities to obtain carbon pollution permits before they 
begin construction. The Republican bill doesn't change this legal 
requirement to have a permit, but it does prevent EPA from actually 
issuing the needed permits. This affects every jurisdiction where EPA 
issues permits.
  This construction ban would apply to all or part of 13 States, 
including my own State of California. It would block dozens of major 
projects, including power plants, refineries, cement kilns, and large 
manufacturing plants. The result would be the loss of thousands of 
construction jobs and permanent jobs at these facilities.
  Members have different views about how to reduce carbon pollution, 
but we should all agree that a multi-State construction ban is a 
terrible idea.
  The Republican bill has other damaging impacts. The bill blocks 
requirements to reduce carbon pollution emissions that Congress 
established in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and expanded a few 
years ago. The bill even blocks successful voluntary programs that 
partner with industry like Energy Star, and it blocks the renewable 
fuel standard that Congress established 4 years ago which aims to 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

[[Page 2113]]

  This is a sweeping, reckless, and irresponsible bill. I urge all my 
colleagues to oppose it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word to enter 
into a colloquy with Mr. Denham of California.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The gentlewoman from 
Missouri is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DENHAM. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I originally planned on offering an amendment to cut the General 
Services Administration's budget to force it to sell unneeded Federal 
properties. My purpose was to get GSA's attention and compel it to stop 
wasting billions of dollars on Federal buildings we no longer need or 
barely use. However, through this colloquy, I hope our committees can 
make a commitment to work together and accomplish this same goal.
  Just last week, I held my subcommittee's first hearing in a freezing 
cold, vacant Federal building on Pennsylvania Avenue. The building sits 
on one of the most famous streets in America, within walking distance 
of the U.S. Capitol and the White House. Yet it has been empty for over 
a decade and loses over $6 million in taxpayer money each year. I am 
sad to say there are buildings like this across the entire Nation. 
According to GAO, Federal agencies reported over 45,000 underutilized 
buildings that cost $1.66 billion annually to operate and maintain.

                              {time}  1450

  At GSA's current rate of disposal, it will take over 800 years to get 
rid of excess and surplus properties.
  Our Nation is facing financial distress, and this wasteful spending 
must stop. GSA needs to get serious about selling wasteful properties. 
To date, GSA has failed to provide my office with detailed information 
about the Federal Government's inventory of properties. Congress needs 
to see the list of properties so we can hold GSA's feet to the fire, 
sell wasteful properties and save taxpayer money.
  Madam Chairman, I would greatly appreciate your commitment to work 
with our committee on the following items:
  To compel GSA to provide detailed property lists of unneeded or 
money-losing properties to our committees, as well as an inclusive list 
of the entire asset inventory under its jurisdiction;
  Second, to compel GSA to greatly increase the number of properties it 
sells or redevelops;
  And, third, to work with the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee on a legislative initiative to consolidate Federal employees 
into fewer Federal buildings.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Let me thank the gentleman for calling attention to 
these important issues and offering to work with our subcommittee on 
your three initiatives. The Appropriations Committee shares your deep 
concerns about the number of wasteful properties in the government 
inventory, and I commit to working with you on the three items you 
mentioned so we can together save taxpayer money.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

         TITLE VII--INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES

       Sec. 1701. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 
     Management of Lands and Resources'' shall be $927,523,000: 
     Provided, That the amounts included under such heading in 
     division A of Public Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds 
     appropriated by this division by substituting 
     ``$927,523,000'' for ``$959,571,000'' the second place it 
     appears.


           Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 263, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 263, line 18, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 359, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I have talked to the 
leadership of the committee, and I think that this amendment is 
agreeable to them, and I don't think there is going to be a great deal 
of opposition to it.
  What I want to do is I want to send a message to the Bureau of Land 
Management. This amendment only cuts about $2 million from the Bureau 
of Land Management's Management of Lands and Resources Account, and I 
know that is not much when you are talking about a $1.65 trillion 
deficit this year. But the problem I am addressing is the Wild Horse 
and Burro Management Program that they have. This program was started I 
believe in 1971, and since then the Secretary of the Interior has been 
charged with managing these mustangs that live on public lands out West 
primarily.
  By any stretch of the imagination, this program may have been 
successful to a degree, but it is very, very costly. The cost has gone 
from $20.4 million in fiscal year 2000 to $64 million in 2010, and the 
President has asked for $75.7 million in this coming fiscal year. As 
far back as 2008, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has 
warned that the cost of this program will get completely out of control 
unless we deal with it in an efficient way, and this has not happened.
  What is going on right now is they are taking these mustangs and they 
are transporting them from their habitat where they live now as far as 
1,000 miles. They are putting them in holding pens. They just recently 
rounded up I believe about 10,000 of these wild horses. They ship them 
to a holding pen halfway from, let's say, Nevada to Oklahoma, and then 
they transfer them the rest of the way, about 1,000 miles. It costs 
about $2,500 per horse to keep them in these pens, and there are other 
ways to handle this problem. So the Bureau of Land Management really 
needs to get on with the problem of dealing with these wild animals in 
a very efficient and humane way, and they are not doing that.
  I have talked to the people over at the Bureau of Land Management, 
told them we were going to bring this up, and that it was very, very 
important that they come up with a program that is a responsible way to 
deal with these animals and do it in a humane way.
  Now, they are talking about, in addition to corralling them, to 
killing many thousands of these horses through euthanasia, and a lot of 
people in this country, the Humane Society and animal lovers, think 
this is a very inhumane way to deal with this problem. The Bureau of 
Land Management needs to talk to people who are interested in this 
issue and come to a conclusion that is acceptable to people all across 
this country that believe in the mustangs that are out West.
  So, as I said, my amendment only cuts $2 million. It is just a drop 
in the bucket when you are talking about this overall cost problem we 
are facing. But it is one that I hope will send a very strong message 
to the Bureau of Land Management, to treat mustangs in a humane way and 
to solve this problem in a way that is acceptable to the Congress of 
the United States and the people of this country across America.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairman, we agree that there is a major problem 
with the wild horse and burro policy. It is too expensive and 
problematic for multiple uses on public lands and conserving western 
rangelands. I would like to work with Mr. Burton, Mr. Hastings, and Mr. 
Bishop on this problem. The true problem is the law, not the funding of 
the law.
  In recognition of the problems that Mr. Burton raises, we will accept 
this amendment, but first I would like to make some important points 
about the wild horse and burro program.
  The wild horse population is not native to North America and can 
double every 4 years. If horses aren't removed

[[Page 2114]]

from the range, it can cause degradation and reduced foliage for 
wildlife and livestock. If this program isn't appropriately funded and 
horses aren't removed from the range, wild horses will continue to 
reproduce, over-graze and eventually have a population crash, which 
means starving horses.
  I would also point out that it is already illegal to slaughter wild 
horses or burros, and the BLM spends no funds on slaughtering wild 
horses or burros. But I appreciate the gentleman from Indiana pointing 
out the problem, and I would like to work with him to find a reasonable 
solution to this that doesn't cost the kind of money that it currently 
costs.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairwoman, we are going to hear some opposition to 
the intent of this legislation, so let me share some thoughts about it.
  Despite so much public support for allowing wild horses to remain 
wild, despite multiple scientific studies of their management that 
exposed poor analysis, fiscal waste, and no use of preventative 
methods, the BLM continues to use helicopters to round up and remove 
horses from the range and place them in long-term holding facilities. 
There are about 40,600 horses in these pens currently.
  The most recently completed fiscal year holding costs accounted for 
$37 million out of a total wild horse and burro budget of $64 million. 
The average lifespan of a wild horse in captivity is about 30 years. 
Holding and maintaining one wild horse in these long-term facilities 
costs about $500 a year.
  Last year, BLM received a 30 percent increase in their budget. 
Instead of using that to fix this broken wild horse management problem, 
they permanently removed another 10,000 wild horses and burros and put 
them into tax funded long-term holding pens.
  BLM's approach has been enormously wasteful and misguided. Instead of 
capturing wild horses and holding them in pens for life, BLM should 
have already fully implemented a less costly, preventative, and more 
humane option, that of controlling herd size through contraception.
  According to a study by the U.S. Geological Survey, the BLM could 
save up to $8 million a year with the implementation of herd reduction 
through birth control. It plans to use birth control for approximately 
1,000 horses this year but will still round up and remove nearly 10,000 
others they feel are ``excessive,'' in their words. At the same time, 
we have private citizens who are willing to use their own money to form 
public-private partnerships that will preserve these horses in the 
wild, promote economic activity, and reduce the cost to the Federal 
Government.
  Instead of embracing these opportunities, such as Mrs. Pickens' 
generous plan, BLM has relied on procedural arguments to block such 
initiatives and maintain the status quo. That is why this amendment is 
important.
  As we expanded into the West two centuries ago, we found millions of 
wild horses thriving on the American prairies and high deserts. They 
became part of our American heritage, helping us reach the West and 
develop and thrive as a nation. They have been our companions and our 
inspiration, but we have already destroyed too many of them.
  The small herds that still run free symbolize our growth as a great 
nation. That is why Congress declared them protected in 1971. We said 
that they are entitled to the greatest protection possible, as they 
were fast disappearing from the American landscape. But rather than 
maintaining them in their natural state and allowing them to be free, 
we captured them, often causing harm and even death, and we contained 
them in these long-term holding facilities.

                              {time}  1500

  We had millions of wild horses at one time, now reduced to only 
30,000 still living on the range. We have more in captivity than we 
have on the range. The fact is, it's time for the Bureau of Land 
Management to wake up, take this issue seriously, work with all the 
stakeholders to fix an unsustainable situation.
  Mr. Burton's amendment is intended to make this point abundantly 
clear to the Bureau of Land Management, and that's why we accept this 
amendment.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Chair, I rise to correct some of the statements 
that were just made. In my home State of Wyoming, we have more than 
30,000 wild horses. The wild horses have no natural predators. And I 
have ridden BLM wild horses. My sister adopted two of them. I've ridden 
them. We've used them on our ranch, and I know whereof I speak.
  Wild horses overgrazing our fragile ecosystems in the West on lands 
that were not conducive to the type of grazing that occurs when a 
hoofed animal that does not have a split hoof is grazing causes the 
soil to be tamped down. Horses are a solid-hoofed animal. When they 
run, they tamp the soil. When we have our sparse rains, it runs off, 
thereby causing soil erosion and causing difficult grazing situations.
  The natural grazers on that land for millennia were split-hoofed 
animals such as elk and bison, and that is why sheep and cattle are 
more conducive to protecting the grazing of that sparse fragile 
resource than a solid-hoofed animal. When you put too many solid-hoofed 
animals tamping down that fragile grass with a very shallow reservoir 
of top soil, you cause overgrazing and you are loving horses in a way 
that causes the fragile grass ecosystem to the Western States to die.
  It is this Congress that has caused the problems by saying that we 
cannot slaughter horses. Yet we're not supposed to keep them in pens. 
We're supposed to allow them to overgraze the West.
  When the gentle people east of the Mississippi will take these excess 
horses into their backyards, I will support this amendment. Until then, 
I oppose efforts by those well-meaning people that measure animal unit 
months by the acre and we measure acres by the animal unit month.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I rise to discuss section 1746, which would 
eliminate EPA funding from going to implementation of the Clean Air 
Act.
  Over the past 40 years, the bipartisan Clean Air Act has saved 
hundreds of thousands of lives and improved the health of Americans in 
every State. It protects the air we breathe. It protects our children 
from developing asthma and our seniors from developing emphysema. 
According to the American Lung Association, in 2010 alone the Clean Air 
Act saved over 160,000 lives. Even since 1990, the EPA estimates the 
Clean Air Act prevented an estimated 843,000 asthma attacks, 18 million 
cases of respiratory illness amongst children, 672,000 cases of chronic 
bronchitis, 21,000 cases of heart disease, and 200,000 premature 
deaths.
  And yet in the irresponsible Republican spending bill, there's an 
attempt to eliminate all funding from the implementation of the Clean 
Air Act. It is clear that the Republican majority is doing all it can 
to stop EPA from carrying out its mission of protecting public health 
and protecting our environment.
  Many will claim that the EPA is moving at a faster pace than any 
other administration in history. However, the EPA has proposed fewer 
Clean Air Act rules under President Obama over the past 21 months than 
in the first 2 years of either President Bush or President Clinton. 
That is why in December of 2010, 280 groups, including the American 
Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the American Public

[[Page 2115]]

Health Association, and others, sent a letter urging the Congress to 
``reject any measure that would block or delay the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency from doing its job to protect all 
Americans from life-threatening air pollution.''
  The irresponsible Republican spending bill is not the place to 
legislate these types of changes. These policy changes should not be 
made during this sort of process. The Clean Air Act is promoting 
innovation and breaking American oil dependence, but Republicans would 
give big polluters a loophole to roll back our clean energy process and 
continue our addiction to foreign oil.
  The Clean Air Act is good for our economy. Many studies have shown 
the Clean Air Act's economic benefits to far exceed any costs 
associated with the law by as much as a 40-to-1 ratio. As President 
Obama so eloquently spoke of during his State of the Union address, we 
must out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build our global competitors 
and win the future. Rolling back a law that protects the air our 
children breathe to allow oil companies--companies that are already 
reaping record profits--the ability to spew chemicals, smog, soot, and 
pollution into the air just to please a lobbyist or a Big Oil 
corporation is irresponsible and extreme.
  The Clean Air Act has been on the books for decades, with positive 
results for our economy, our environment, and our businesses. Rolling 
back these protections will only hurt our most vulnerable. We simply 
cannot afford to go backward.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1702.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 
     Construction'' shall be $2,590,000: Provided, That no less 
     than $1,000,000 in available, unobligated prior-year funds 
     shall be used in addition to amounts provided by this 
     division.


                Amendment No. 556 Offered by Mr. Pearce

  Mr. PEARCE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       On page 263, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,590,000)''.
       On page 264, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,750,000)''.
       On page 264, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $23,737,000)''.
       On page 264, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $15,055,000)''.
       On page 267, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $171,713,000)''.
       On page 268, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $14,100,000)''.
       On page 278, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $9,100,000)''.
       Sec. None of the funds made available by this. Act may be 
     used for the Land and
       On page 359, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increases by $239,045,000)''.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairwoman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. PEARCE. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
amendment in the form at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from New Mexico?
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairwoman, I object to the modification.
  The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
  The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PEARCE. Madam Chair, whenever a family is running behind on its 
obligations, the family begins to stop its investments and its 
purchases.
  Madam Chair, I would draw the attention of our body to the chart in 
front of me. We're spending $3.5 trillion a year, and we bring in $2.2 
trillion a year. That means that we have $1.3 trillion a year in 
deficit that goes into our debt barrel. Currently, our debt is around 
$15 trillion a year. That's on top of the $89 trillion unobligated 
funds that we have to pay in the future for Social Security, Medicare 
and Medicaid.
  Madam Chair, it is time for us to live within our means as a Nation. 
So my amendment simply strikes the ability for BLM to purchase new land 
and buildings. It removes $15 million from fish and wildlife for land 
acquisitions.

                              {time}  1510

  It removes $14-plus million from national parks for land 
acquisitions. It removes $9 million from the Forest Service for land 
acquisitions. It removes $2.5 million from the OMB for new 
construction. It removes $23 million from the Fish and Wildlife Service 
for construction funds, and it removes $171 million from the National 
Park Service for construction funds.
  As we look at the picture here of us as a Nation--and we are seeing 
that literally we are in the process of wrecking our economy, the same 
as a family would be wrecking its economy--it is time for us to not 
stop the purchases of land, but to simply put them off to a future time 
when we can get our economic house in order. We are not talking about 
stopping these programs forever, just for the rest of this fiscal year.
  It is not the time for us to be spending money in this way. Our 
future is at risk. We are having to look at cutting significant funds 
from programs that matter. We are running a $1.3 trillion deficit this 
year. The President says in next year's budget he wants to run a $1.6 
trillion deficit. CBO and OMB both have a chart here that shows our 
economy as simply discontinuous in the 2030 range.
  When we are talking about the fiscal instability of our economy, when 
we are talking about this picture for our ability to pay our debts, 
when we are talking about this picture for the Nation, then it only 
makes sense for us to look and to prioritize our funding and to 
prioritize our expenditures the same way any family would.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             POINT OF ORDER

  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from Idaho continue to reserve 
his point of order?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairwoman, I insist on my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairwoman, the amendment proposes to amend 
portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered 
en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment does not 
merely propose to transfer appropriations among objects in the bill, 
but also proposes language other than those amounts.
  I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, in addition to its being a point of order, I 
think it should be noted that what we are talking about, nature and 
culture visitation, are huge industries, responsible for more than 3 
million jobs.
  The Park Service has a backlog in deferred maintenance of at least $6 
billion. We can't be cutting construction. In fact, these funds enhance 
national parks, wildlife refuges, public lands, and create thousands of 
new jobs.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will confine his remarks to the point 
of order.
  Mr. MORAN. I would support, though, the motion that this is out of 
order and trust that it will be ruled as such.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the 
gentleman's point of order? If not, the Chair will rule:
  To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an 
amendment must propose only to transfer appropriations among objects in 
the bill. Because the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Mexico proposes also another kind of change in the bill, namely, a new 
limitation on funds in the bill, it may not avail itself of clause 2(f) 
to address portions of the bill not yet read.
  The point of order is sustained.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Chair, there is bipartisan

[[Page 2116]]

 agreement that Congress needs to create jobs, grow our economy, and 
live within our means. The bill before us today, though, goes too far, 
with irresponsible and arbitrary cuts that will threaten the economy 
and cost us more than 800,000 private and public sector jobs. Included 
in today's bill is reckless language that will cost thousands of jobs 
in coastal communities in my district and in Oregon by destroying the 
recreational and commercial salmon fisheries.
  Over the years, my district has been hit hard by politically 
motivated water management decisions that have resulted in dramatic 
declines in salmon stock. For example, in the Central Valley, we 
witnessed a peak of 768,000 fall-run salmon in 2002, followed by a 
collapse to a historic low of only 39,500 fish in 2009. These declines 
have led to an estimated $1.4 billion in lost economic activity in 
2008, 2009 and 23,000 lost jobs.
  In these 2 years, the commercial fishery was completely shut down. 
Last year, only 14,500 salmon were caught by the California salmon 
fishery, which is about 20 percent as many as were caught during the 
2006 disaster. This only exacerbates the economic crisis facing fishing 
families in communities in my district. These fishing families have 
been put out of work in my district and up through and into Oregon. 
Some have lost their homes, their savings, and their livelihoods.
  Water management decisions in the collapsing bay-delta ecosystem need 
to be based on science, not politics. In 2002, the science on minimum 
flows in the Klamath River was ignored, resulting in the death of some 
80,000 salmon and the loss of countless fishing community jobs. Today's 
bill does the same thing by waiving Federal protections, which put at 
risk fishing industry jobs. By de-funding the biological opinions, this 
bill also threatens water supplies for southern California farmers and 
cities by placing the burden to comply with the California Endangered 
Species Act solely on the State Water Project.
  We know that with the right tools and careful water management we can 
meet our water needs in a cost-effective way and restore salmon runs 
and coastal economies. We need to continue the ongoing negotiations 
aimed at reaching balanced solutions for California's water challenges. 
This bill undermines that effort.
  For these reasons and many more, I urge my colleagues to join me in 
opposing this reckless piece of legislation that hurts jobs, hurts the 
economy, and hurts my district.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Chair, I am troubled to be on the floor this 
afternoon.
  Americans still are facing staggering unemployment rates, and our 
economy has not yet fully recovered; but instead of talking about the 
many ways we can generate jobs, especially clean-energy jobs that can't 
be shipped overseas and about ways to improve the health of American 
families, we have an extreme piece of legislation before us.
  Americans all agree that fiscal discipline is a must, but special 
interests giveaways and legislative earmarks to protect big polluters 
won't balance our checkbook. Putting health protection on the chopping 
block means dirtier air, dirtier water, and more children's lives at 
risk. One of the most egregious legislative earmarks in the bill would 
block the EPA from doing its job, which is to protect our health from 
air pollution.
  Madam Chair, not allowing the EPA to address carbon pollution under 
the Clean Air Act is flat-out dangerous. Climate change is a serious 
problem. The scientific evidence is clear. The debate is over. Climate 
change is real. It is happening--and human beings are largely to blame.
  2010 was the hottest year on record. In the last decade, the Earth 
experienced nine of the 10 hottest years since data has been recorded. 
We are also starting to see the irreversible damage to our economy and 
to our environment. Sea levels are rising. Acidification is happening 
in our oceans. The world is witnessing increased rainfall, floods, 
droughts, and wildfires; and our fresh water supplies and capacity to 
grow enough food will be severely challenged in the years ahead.
  Madam Chair, the longer we delay taking action to address climate 
change, the more difficult and expensive the solutions will be. That is 
why the EPA is taking a cautious, flexible, and balanced approach to 
addressing carbon pollution. Each of the steps it has taken so far has 
followed the letter of the law. For four decades, the Clean Air Act has 
protected the health of millions of Americans, including our children, 
our seniors and the most vulnerable among us, from all kinds of 
dangerous air pollutants. The law also has a tremendous track record in 
providing certainty to businesses and delivering economic benefits.
  Since the Clean Air Act was enacted, overall, air pollution has 
dropped while the U.S. GDP has risen 207 percent. We have also seen 
major health benefits, including asthma reduction, lower lung cancer 
rates, and much greater productivity. In fact, by 2020, the benefits of 
the Clean Air Act are expected to reach $2 trillion, exceeding any cost 
by more than 30 to 1.
  All of these benefits, Madam Chair, are jeopardized by this dangerous 
rollback of the Clean Air Act included in the Republican omnibus 
spending bill.

                              {time}  1520

  And that's why groups, many groups ranging from the American Lung 
Association to the American Sustainable Business Council, have decried 
the harm of this proposal to people's health and our economy. And it's 
why I stand with them today in opposing the extreme earmarks to gut the 
Clean Air Act. This sweeping proposal has many impacts. It would block 
new construction. It tampers with the clean car agreement between the 
automakers, the States, and the Obama administration. And it would stop 
the renewable fuels standard in its track.
  Madam Chair, our constituents want us to create jobs and to stand up 
for the health of our families. They don't want us to stand with the 
big polluters. This attack just doesn't make sense.
  Last month, President Obama stood on the House floor and talked about 
``winning the future'' through innovation, and he used clean energy as 
his central example. We know that clean energy will put Americans to 
work. It will help our economy grow, and it will help America compete 
in a global marketplace. Let's create jobs by investing in cleaner 
forms of energy. Let's not obstruct the EPA from doing its job of 
protecting the public's health and environment.
  These are crucial issues, Madam Chair, for the public and the planet. 
It's our duty here in this place to ensure both are protected from 
harmful carbon pollution. Unfortunately, this extreme legislation does 
not meet this crucial test. Congress should be investing in America's 
future, not moving backwards.
  So I urge my colleagues to say ``no'' to this irresponsible omnibus 
with all of its reckless spending cuts.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Chairman, this spending bill is simply unacceptable 
on many levels. This is a bill drafted for a sound bite, not sound 
policy for the American people. Handcuffing the EPA is proof of that 
fact, and I have and will continue to oppose those attempts and propose 
amendments where possible.
  This CR arbitrarily kills jobs, hurts the public health, and is a 
slap in the face to protecting our environment and clean air. This CR 
will set our country back decades by curtailing scientific research 
simply because Republicans don't like what the science says. Worse yet, 
it puts our children's health at risk by handcuffing the EPA's ability 
to simply police polluters. The American public needs real solutions 
and thoughtful policies, not sound bytes.
  This bill is a backhanded way of achieving a policy objective. Just 
because the Republican Party doesn't

[[Page 2117]]

like what the overwhelming science is telling us and they've stopped 
time and time again any meaningful reform, now they're attempting to 
legislate in a spending bill.
  This bill simply continues the false logic often employed by 
Republicans: underfund an agency, then complain about its 
ineffectiveness, then call for further cuts because the program didn't 
have the funds to work in the first place.
  Madam Chairman, the EPA is working hard to protect us from pollution 
in a responsible way that spurs the economy. This CR prohibits any 
funding from being used to carry out the EPA's power plant pollution 
safeguards, the rules that target the largest power plants and prevent 
them from polluting our air.
  The rules also spur economic growth. A recent study by MIT found that 
nearly 1.5 million jobs could be created by simply letting the EPA 
ensure that over time power companies move towards cleaner power 
plants. That's 1.5 million jobs cut by this CR. Furthermore, this 
provision only harms an industry by giving it increased uncertainty and 
not allowing them to plan for the future. In some cases, it might even 
lock up permits from going to companies that are a normal part of 
business. We don't need sound bites; we need sound policy.
  The Clean Air Act guards the most vulnerable Americans, those with 
asthma and other lung disease, children, older adults, people with 
heart disease and diabetes, from the danger, the real danger of 
airborne pollutants, including threats from mercury, carbon dioxide and 
methane. Each year, the act prevents tens of thousands of ill health 
effects, including preventing asthma attacks, heart attacks and, yes, 
preventing premature death. This year alone, the Clean Air Act will 
save more than 160,000 lives, according to estimates by the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  Forty years of evidence shows that these health benefits come not 
only without harm to the economy but with benefits to the economy. 
Since 1970, the Clean Air Act has cut emissions by 60 percent. At the 
same time, the economy has grown by more than 200 percent.
  Madam Chair, I implore the majority party to stop making grand 
gestures attempting to bully the EPA. Let it do its job of protecting 
your family and my family from dangerous pollution. Let it do its job 
to keep our air and our water clean.
  This CR is a polluter's dream and a public health nightmare. I urge a 
``no'' vote.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I move to strike the 
last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, we all recognize the 
need for us to reduce the deficit and curtail unreasonable spending, 
but this continuing resolution obviously goes far too in the extreme 
direction of harming our economy and harming many of the services that 
our citizens have come to rely on to finish and bring their lives 
together, whether they're working, whether they need health care, 
whether their children need education, and this resolution is harmful 
for that.
  But I want to speak for the moment on section 1475, which is a rider 
that is added to this legislation that will harm the California 
economy, harm our ability to plan into the future for the use of water.
  We have a water system in California that's dramatically 
oversubscribed, and we're in the process now of bringing that together 
to make sure that we can meet the future economic needs of our State 
and also the needs of the various sectors of that economy, whether they 
be the fishing sector, they be the energy producing sector, the farming 
sector or the settlement of our cities.
  But with this rider--this rider, first of all, throws out 18 years of 
litigation successfully brought to an end, a long conflict on the San 
Joaquin River to provide for that settlement, a settlement that is 
agreed to by almost everyone. But more importantly, for the sake of the 
long-term water using, this amendment defunds the biological opinions 
that were going forward that are the cornerstone to provide for the 
final elements of the plan to provide California and the apportionment 
of that water for the protection of the fisheries and the economies in 
northern California, for the protection in the water supplies of the 
Central Valley's economy and the needs of the great urban areas of 
southern California. That planning must be completed.
  This is as close as we've come. After decades and decades of water 
wars in the State of California, we finally have the opportunity now to 
bring the various parties together from all geographic regions, from 
all sectors of the economy, and plan the future of our State so that we 
will have the water that is necessary to secure our economy, to secure 
our families, to secure our agricultural areas of the State, and to 
provide for the great ecology of the State of California.
  We've gone through some disasters, if you will, because of the 
droughts, because of water cycles, and my colleague from further north 
in the State, Mike Thompson, laid out this. We saw thousands of jobs 
lost, the fisheries decimated because of political water decisions that 
were made over the last several years that decimated the salmon run, 
not only affecting just the San Francisco Bay delta but affecting the 
coastal regions of our State and the coastal regions of Oregon and 
Washington.
  These are important fisheries. This is an important part of our 
economy. It's a renewable part of our economy if we take care of it, 
but if we have mindless riders that are put onto legislation like the 
one provided in section 1475, it will bring an end to these 
negotiations.
  It's taken a long time to get the water parties from the south, the 
water parties from industry, the water parties from agriculture, from 
the environmental community and the government, the Federal Government 
and State government together. They are sitting at that table and 
they're working it through.
  Just in the last couple of days, we see the delta planning 
organization put forth its first document to say what the requirements 
will be for the conservation habitat plan that all of these elements 
from north and south California working on. This amendment simply kicks 
that negotiating table over. It drives the parties away from the 
negotiation, and California goes back into water uncertainty, economic 
uncertainty, ecological uncertainty that our State cannot continue to 
have if we're going to grow our economy, if we're going to come out of 
this recession.
  So I would hope that on passage the Members would vote against this 
continuing resolution, understanding the kind of damage that these 
kinds of riders that were inserted in the middle of the night on behalf 
of a few special interests have the opportunity to really destroy, 
destroy bipartisan geographical negotiations that are the most 
promising in the last 40 years in the history of our State.
  The opposition from so many of the water users across the State, no 
matter where they reside, to this rider is well-known, to the fishing 
community, to so many parts of our economy in the San Joaquin-
Sacramento Bay delta, and to the future of our ability to get a handle 
on these water issues that have plagued us for so many years in 
California. I would hope that we would reject this provision of this 
legislation.

                              {time}  1530

  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Chair, we all believe in economic growth and job 
creation and environmental stability, but this resolution goes in the 
wrong direction and affects my State and district adversely.
  Madam Chair, water in California is never a dull subject. As we try 
to repair the delta and prepare our water system for the generations to 
come, it is imperative that we make progress and not take steps 
backwards. That

[[Page 2118]]

means achieving a healthy delta and finding a way for water users 
throughout California to receive their water without harming the delta. 
The amendments to the continuing resolution that defund and cut funding 
from the San Joaquin River Restoration, the Central Valley Project 
Restoration Fund, and the implementation of the biological opinion of 
the delta smelt and salmon are steps backwards.
  The balance that we have been trying to achieve in California is a 
negotiation that must not be thrown off balance. Decades of work toward 
a more certain future for California water is only attainable when 
everyone works toward a solution rather than throw up roadblocks that 
cost us precious time. That work started during the Bush administration 
and continues to this day. I urge you to oppose the language in the 
continuing resolution and allow the work by key stakeholders in 
California to continue.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YARMUTH. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Chair, I rise today to oppose section 1746 of H.R. 
1 and to urge defeat of this bill.
  In my hometown of Louisville, Kentucky, and in communities all across 
the United States, a provision of H.R. 1, section 1746, will 
effectively ban new construction on power plants, refineries, and 
manufacturing facilities. By freezing the Environmental Protection 
Agency's ability to issue a mission-based construction permit, H.R. 1 
would halt dozens of ongoing projects in communities like Louisville. 
Under this provision, thousands of jobs in construction, contracting, 
and manufacturing could be lost. In Louisville alone, plans to improve 
Ford's Kentucky truck plant could be derailed, jeopardizing the jobs of 
thousands of hardworking Kentuckians.
  I know what you're thinking, what I'm saying can't possibly be true. 
But it is. You're thinking, this must be an unintended consequence of 
section 1746 or perhaps an error in drafting, but it's not. Apparently, 
this is exactly what the Republicans on the Appropriations Committee 
intended to do. They will let nothing stand in the way of their 
feverish rush to handcuff the EPA, not even American jobs. In their 
effort to slam through a package of irresponsible cuts and to thwart 
the work of the very agency charged with protecting the air we breathe 
and the water we drink, the casualties aren't just limited to our 
national environment but real people and real jobs. Republicans in the 
House are trying to shut down the EPA at all costs, except they aren't 
the ones paying the price.
  I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1. It is reckless. It 
is irresponsible. And it is politics at their very worst.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair, the draconian cuts to EPA funding will 
negatively impact my congressional district which has one of the 
highest rates of asthma in the Nation. For many years, I have worked 
closely and been dependent on EPA's collaboration to address the impact 
that poor air quality has had on residents of my district. The funding 
limitation that stops the EPA from limiting greenhouse gases will 
negatively impact air quality not only in my congressional district but 
throughout the Nation. This would also cause the cancellation of 
numerous projects which would eliminate thousands of jobs.
  The National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities are also facing 
severe cuts. What kind of society have we become if we cannot encourage 
and fund the arts and humanities? Are we focusing on jobs? We must 
remember that giving our young people the opportunity to experience the 
arts leads to a more qualified and educated workforce. The funding for 
the NEA and the NEH helps to provide an important investment in our 
local arts organizations.
  Our national parks contribute to the standard of living that many 
Americans enjoy. Our national parks are one of our greatest treasures, 
available to all of us. We must continue to improve and protect this 
valuable resource. The cuts to the National Park Service will also 
negatively affect many historical and conservation projects. With cuts 
to the Drinking Water Fund, we will be eliminating communities' ability 
to provide clean and safe drinking water to their residents who we, as 
elected officials, are stewards of.
  Now I know that we continue, over the last 24 and over the next 24 
hours, to discuss these very serious cuts. All I would hope is that as 
we go forward and we deal with cuts that many of us agree have to be 
made, that we pay special attention to the future of our country. One 
thing is to simply say, cuts reduce the deficit. The other thing is to 
say, what are we going to do to parks, what are we going to do to 
drinking water, what are we going to do to the air we breathe, what are 
we going to do to all the good things we've done over the last 30, 40, 
50 years to make our country even better? As we cut budgets, we must 
take that into consideration.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Guam is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Chairman, I will not be offering my amendment No. 
487 in the Congressional Record. It would restore funding to the 
Assistance to Territories Account under U.S. Department of the 
Interior's Office of Insular Affairs to fiscal year 2008 levels. The 7 
percent reduction in funding offered by the Republican majority would 
cut necessary assistance to the governments of Guam, the U.S. Virgin 
Islands, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands. The U.S. territories are provided assistance 
through the Office of Insular Affairs, and the financial assistance 
provided by the account to be cut has allowed our governments to fund 
disaster mitigation programs, coral reef conservation initiatives, 
infrastructure repairs, and environmental preservation. In fact, Madam 
Chairman, the Constitution under article IV, section 3, clause 2 gives 
this Congress explicit authority: ``The Congress shall have power to 
dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the 
territory or other property belonging to the United States.''
  While this impacts all territories, on Guam, in particular, funding 
from the OIA has been critical to the mitigation of invasive species, 
management of coral reef conservation programs, technical assistance to 
modernize and develop our port which provides direct economic benefit 
as well as assistance in modernizing our tax collection and our 
auditing systems. If my colleagues on the other side want to help 
diversify and develop the economies of the territories, then it is 
essential that we continue to provide this technical assistance in a 
targeted fashion, as is done now, to jump-start that development 
process.
  My colleagues from the U.S. territories, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. 
Pierluisi, Mrs. Christensen, and Mr. Sablan, all agree that this 
funding cut is yet another example of the majority's lack of concern 
for the over 4 million residents of the U.S. territories. While the 
majority's removal of our symbolic voting rights at the beginning of 
the 112th Congress did not affect the livelihoods of our constituents, 
this funding cut would tangibly result in a reduction of public service 
in each of our districts, and I oppose the Republicans' continued 
neglect of our local governments in the territories.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from American Samoa is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the goal to cut 
spending and reduce the deficit, which is projected to hit $1.6 
trillion this year; and I am very pleased with the

[[Page 2119]]

approach laid out by President Obama. In his budget proposal for FY 
2012 and beyond, President Obama is making the case for selectively 
cutting spending while increasing resources in areas like education and 
clean-energy initiatives that hold the potential for long-term payoffs 
in economic growth.

                              {time}  1540

  This commonsense approach will help bring down annual deficits to 
more substantial levels, but not at the peril of programs that are 
vital to economic growth, job creation and the well-being of our fellow 
Americans.
  Madam Chairman, this spending bill, H.R. 1, which proposes to cut 
programs and funding under section 1729 and 1730 does not help our 
economically struggling fellow Americans through initiatives involving 
education, the environment and housing and employment. It will cut 
critical programs and projects that are essential to economic 
development and job creation, not only in the 50 States, but also in 
the insular areas.
  Madam Chairman, in particular, the proposed bill will cut 
approximately $6.6 million from the current budget outlays for the 
Department of the Interior's Office of Insular Affairs. These cuts also 
include an 8 percent reduction for technical assistance, and about 4 
percent reduction of OIA salaries and expenses.
  Madam Chairman, the OIA budget has maintained relatively constant 
funding levels since FY 1998, despite disproportionate need for 
improvements in the territories. For instance, the OIA Office General 
Technical Assistance program provides critical support not otherwise 
available to insular areas, combating deteriorating economic and fiscal 
conditions and to maintain momentum needed to make and sustain 
meaningful systematic changes.
  Reduction in the OIA and the compact association funding will 
translate to cuts to the vital projects including, but are not limited 
to, these projects which foster development of the insular areas in 
accountability, financial management, tax systems and procedures, 
insular management controls, economic development, and also with regard 
to energy, public safety, health, immigration, the whole thing, Madam 
Chairman.
  And, Madam Chairman, these projects are also critically needed 
funding for implementation of our obligations under the Compact of Free 
Association for the Republic of Palau, the Republic of the Marshall 
Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia.
  Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to continue support for the 
needs of these insular areas and our obligations to our compact friends 
in the Pacific.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHU. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. CHU. Madam Chair, I rise in support of Ms. Bordallo's amendment 
and to protest the gutting and slashing of more than $6 million for the 
insular areas. This will hurt American families and communities all 
across the country, from the Northern Mariana Islands to the northern 
border of Maine.
  It hits our outlying territories particularly hard and the American 
citizens and families who live and work there. This bill takes more 
than 7 percent out of the Assistance to Territories Account which funds 
critical programs at the local level in Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, 
American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 
These communities have unique needs and this account helps them address 
those. It helps fund disaster mitigation programs, particularly 
important in low-lying islands susceptible to tropical storms. It helps 
ensure a strong and robust judiciary in American Samoa, a crucial 
program to ensure that the American Constitution and U.S. laws are 
upheld in every corner of our Nation. It helps these areas make needed 
infrastructure repairs, which creates jobs that are critical during 
this tough economic time.
  This amendment would restore this funding; and just because these 
communities may be farther away does not mean that they are any less 
American and in any less need of the services this funding provides. 
Just because these communities are farther away does not mean that the 
slashing of programs will go unnoticed.
  As chairwoman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, I 
want to express my strong support for the amendment offered by Ms. 
Bordallo and oppose the cuts to the Assistance to Territories Account 
offered by the Republican majority in H.R. 1.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABLAN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SABLAN. Madam Chair, people in the Northern Mariana Islands pay 
up to 40 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity. That's four times the 
national average because we're dependent on diesel oil shipped long 
distances.
  A technical assistance grant for the Department of the Interior's 
Office of Insular Affairs, however, has helped identify a possible 
source of geothermal energy on one of the islands. Further exploration 
and more investments are needed to be sure that this alternative source 
will work for us; but without the technical assistance grant from 
Interior, we wouldn't even know that we have this possibility of 
getting off our dependence on expensive foreign oil.
  And now, H.R. 1 proposes to cut the funds that Interior uses to help 
the Northern Marianas and the other insular areas in this way. That 
kind of thinking is penny wise and pound foolish.
  But helping us get free of foreign oil is only one example of how 
this Interior Department funding helps us. These cuts threaten the 
brown tree snake program. I know this may sound like a joke to some, 
but on Guam there are literally 500,000 or more of these snakes. A few 
came in on military aircraft and spread quickly. They have caused 
millions of dollars in damage to electrical distribution systems and 
destroyed the rare indigenous bird life.
  And we don't want to see these pests spread to the Northern Mariana 
Islands or Hawaii or mainland United States. And the Interior 
Department funding is keeping these snakes in check. Do away with this 
funding and these unwanted immigrants will break through our borders.
  The Interior Department funding that H.R. 1 cuts supports training 
programs for high school and college students in the islands. It 
supports training for our professional people in financial management, 
accounting and auditing to help us manage our money to U.S. standards. 
Take away that training money and you will make it even more difficult 
for us to build capacity and become fully integrated into the American 
family.
  Our economy is based on tourism. Tourists come to enjoy our warm 
oceans and beautiful coral reefs there, but these reefs are at risk. 
Run-off from development on land kills the coral. Funding that H.R. 1 
cuts is helping us to protect the coral that underpins our tourism 
economy. Take away the funding and you hit our already fragile tourism 
industry.
  We all know that the Federal Government has to cut spending. There is 
no disagreement there. We need to weed out wasteful programs. We have 
to get more efficient and effective with our own spending.
  But the money that goes to the Interior Department to help the 
insular areas is not wasted. It is effective. It is targeted on 
precisely the problems that the insular areas confront. It will be a 
mistake, it is a mistake, to cut this tiny amount of money that has a 
large positive effect in the Northern Mariana Islands and all of the 
U.S. insular areas.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Our Nation's unsustainable budget deficit is staring us 
in the face, but it is at critical moments like this when we must 
approach our Nation's greatest challenges with

[[Page 2120]]

responsibility and prudence. Make no mistake that what's at stake here 
is grand in scope, and we could have grave consequences for our 
Nation's security, our infrastructure, and our economy.
  Just this morning, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called the 
Republicans' stopgap spending plan ``a crisis on our doorstep'' in 
terms of our national security, and these shortsighted budget cuts 
could lead to costlier and more tragic consequences later.
  The approach we take must focus on responsible cuts which will have a 
lasting impact on our deficit, not arbitrary short-term cuts to 
programs to win a few votes back home.
  We should be making decisions based on the best available science, 
not the worst possible politics. For example, my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle are focused on de-funding the Mexican Wolf 
Recovery program, instead of protecting the critically important jobs 
at the National Nuclear Security Administration.

                              {time}  1550

  The NNSA is responsible for the management and security of our 
Nation's nuclear weapons and nuclear nonproliferation, and provides 
crucial funding for the work being done at our national labs.
  Our national labs, like Sandia National Lab in central New Mexico, 
have a tremendous impact on our local communities and our national 
defense. Last year, Sandia Labs hired a little over 700 people; 203 of 
these new hires graduated from a New Mexico university.
  I am in favor of reducing government spending. In fact, this week I 
voted to cut $3 billion in unnecessary spending. But installations 
critical to our national security which are also successful private 
sector economic drivers like Sandia National Labs should not take the 
hit.
  Elsewhere in their spending plans, Republicans want to gut the Land 
and Conservation Fund, a proven economic multiplier that has yielded $4 
in economic activity around national parks for every dollar of Federal 
investment. They want to slash the Antiquities Act, which, since 1906, 
has provided an economic lifeline to rural communities surrounded by 
public land.
  Madam Chair, in the West, outdoor recreation and public lands means 
jobs. They mean hunting and fishing and camping and a western way of 
life.
  Also on the chopping block is vital funding for women's health care 
and service agencies like AmeriCorps.
  In regard to infrastructure, the Republicans' continuing resolution 
cuts key investments aimed at fixing our crumbling roads, energy grids, 
and clean water programs. Just this month, in my home State of New 
Mexico, we experienced a major gas outage emergency. On the coldest 
night of the year, with temperatures as low as negative 32 degrees, 
families were left without heat due to distribution infrastructure 
failures across the Southwest.
  In an era of infrastructure failures which wreak havoc on 
communities, cutting key transportation and infrastructure investments 
would leave America dangerously vulnerable. At the same time, these 
cuts will result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs.
  The middle class is still on a shaky path to recovery from the worst 
recession since the Great Depression. Let's not pull the rug out from 
underneath the hardworking people we came here to represent.
  It has been 2 months since the Republicans took over the majority, 
and they still haven't introduced a jobs package. It was bad enough 
that the Republicans were ignoring jobs, but with this CR, they are now 
actively trying to cut jobs. I don't know about you, but a ``so be it'' 
attitude is simply not going to cut it when it comes to the families I 
represent back home.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to resist the 
temptation to politicize the very serious business of reducing our 
Nation's deficit. That is the only way we will ever rebuild the 
public's trust in government and grow our economy.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I am going to speak on the issue of water.
  I represent an area where we have a Superfund site called the San 
Gabriel groundwater contaminated site. This resolution will risk the 
water supply of over 30 million people and directly affects the ability 
to continue the 20-year cleanup that has been in effect, with another 
15 years to run on the contaminated site--the size of Connecticut--
which undermines the agreement the local, the State, the Federal, and 
the potential responsible parties have come together on in doing the 
Bay Delta Conservation Plan.
  With regard to Klamath settlements, which helps secure a clean water 
supply, an adequate water supply to farmers and the environment in the 
San Joaquin Valley and the Klamath Basin, impacting the entire State of 
California, the settlement impacts an agreement developed by not only 
the farmers, the tribes, and the conservation groups, but the power 
companies and the States of California and Oregon, negotiated by no 
less than the Bush administration for voluntary removal of these 
privately owned dams. This will prevent fair congressional 
consideration of the Klamath agreements.
  Madam Chair, the San Gabriel Restoration Fund, the Superfund list 
that I cited before, on H.R. 1, is the last line of defense against 
migrating groundwater contamination that has affected our basin for 
over 35 years, which was due to pesticides, fertilizer, and other 
contaminants. The fund has treated 24,000 acre feet of contaminated 
groundwater, helped fund the construction of 24 treatment facilities, 
and has removed thousands of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, 
carcinogens, which threaten the health of some 40, 50 communities in 
the southern California area. With another decade or more to complete 
this cleanup, the funding to fight the spread of this contamination 
must not be eliminated.
  In the Bay Delta, the further cuts would also abolish key elements of 
the San Joaquin River Restoration program and the implementation of two 
biological opinions on endangered species protecting wild California 
Bay-Delta fisheries, risking millions of people's water supply 
delivery. Fish are species. So is the human race another species.
  Conservation and water recycling save jobs, save money, and talking 
about conservation and these cuts is not warranted. We need that water, 
our economy needs the water, and the jobs all of these will produce. 
Our communities need our support in developing local and sustainable 
water supplies through all the programs we can afford.
                                         Association of California


                                               Water Agencies,

                                Sacramento, CA, February 15, 2011.
     Hon. Tom McClintock,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Water & Power, House Natural 
         Resources Committee, Longworth House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Grace Napolitano,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water & Power, House Natural 
         Resources Committee, Longworth House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McClintock and Ranking Member Napolitano: The 
     Association of California Water Agencies strongly supports 
     the Bureau of Reclamation's Water Recycling and Reuse 
     Program, known as Title XVI, and believes it should be funded 
     in the continuing resolution. For this reason, ACWA opposes 
     amendment 286 to HR 1. ACWA represents nearly 450 public 
     water agencies in California that collectively supply over 
     90% of the water delivered in California for domestic, 
     agricultural, and industrial uses.
       As you are aware, managing water supplies in Western states 
     is challenging. Title XVI projects provide a valuable source 
     of water and help alleviate conflicts. In California alone, 
     this program helps generate over 525,000 acre-feet of 
     recycled water each year. It is strongly supported by local 
     project sponsors who provide three local dollars for every 
     one federal dollar invested in recycling and reuse projects.
       Title XVI projects also create jobs and help local 
     economies. As the projects are constructed, jobs are created 
     in both the primary and secondary job market. As noted by 
     Reclamation's Commissioner Mike Connor in

[[Page 2121]]

     his July 21, 2009 testimony to the House of Representatives 
     Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power, there is a 
     $600 million unfunded backlog of authorized Title XVI 
     projects. These projects are approved by Congress and have 
     local support and funding. Instead of decreasing funding for 
     this program, ACWA encourages Congress to provide more 
     funding. The water reuse program creates jobs and provides 
     near-term solutions to water supply challenges facing many 
     Western states.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Timothy Quinn,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                        WateReuse Association,

                                Alexandria, VA, February 16, 2011.
     Hon. Tom McClintock,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on 
         Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Grace Napolitano,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on 
         Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Honorable McClintock and Napolitano: On behalf of the 
     WateReuse Association, I am writing to oppose efforts to 
     eliminate funding for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Title 
     XVI program and WaterSmart grant program. The WateReuse 
     Association opposes amendments 286 and 289 of the fiscal year 
     2011 continuing appropriations bill (H.R. 1) that would 
     eliminate these vital water supply programs.
       The Title XVI program of P.L. 102-575 allows local 
     communities to reduce their reliance on imported water 
     supplies. Communities throughout the West are able to 
     supplement dwindling local water supplies, reduce energy 
     consumption associated with transporting water, and allow 
     greater quantities of fresh water to be reserved for 
     municipal water supply, irrigation or environmental needs. 
     The Title XVI program allows local communities to leverage 
     federal funds by a factor of three by obtaining additional 
     financing to complete projects. These projects create jobs 
     and new water. The Title XVI program is a necessary tool to 
     meet the growing demands on western water resources. 
     Eliminating the perennially under-funded program will only 
     exacerbate the burden on local communities in the West.
       The WaterSmart grant program is another critical program to 
     conserve and maximize local water supplies. The WaterSmart 
     grant program allows communities to compete for grant 
     opportunities for conservation projects and projects that 
     address the viability of using brackish groundwater, 
     seawater, impaired waters, or otherwise creating new water 
     supplies. This program addresses the most significant 
     challenges facing our water supplies in the 21st Century, 
     including population growth, climate change, rising energy 
     demands, environmental needs and aging infrastructure.
       Title XVI and the WaterSmart grants programs are important 
     tools to conserve water supplies in the West. These programs 
     need funding and should be funded through H.R. 1. I encourage 
     you to join the WateReuse Association in supporting these 
     programs.
           Sincerely,
                                                   G. Wade Miller,
                                               Executive Director.

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Madam Chair, I am committed to cutting the 
deficit, and I sought a seat on the Budget Committee to do so. But I 
rise to express deep concerns over the congressional Republicans' 
irresponsible fiscal scheme that will harm communities and students 
back home that I represent.
  We need a multiyear strategy to cut the debt and the deficit, but a 
strategy that ensures that America retains its superiority in 
education, innovation, and research.
  We must cut waste and close the huge tax loopholes written by 
lobbyists, like the ones for oil companies. But congressional 
Republicans do not do this.
  Instead of tackling the debt and deficit in a smart and strategic 
way, the congressional Republicans' scheme will result in job losses, 
and it will make economic recovery more difficult for American families 
and businesses. And here are some stark examples from the community I 
represent back in Florida in the Tampa Bay area.
  First, on education and the Pell Grant. I represent an education 
community, with a large public research university, a private college, 
and many community colleges. When the Republicans propose cutting the 
Pell Grant and support to students, this harms our ability to maintain 
our superiority in education when we are competing with countries all 
across the globe.
  You know, over 9 million students and families rely on the Pell Grant 
every year in America, and we have worked very hard through the 
economic recovery to help those students maintain that same level of 
Pell Grants. So don't take us backwards. You shouldn't be taking us 
backwards.
  Do you know what it's like for a hardworking family to pay tuition 
right now? Is tuition going down? Is tuition being cut? Are books being 
cut? No. So let's not turn our backs on our students and families at 
this time.
  The same thing for Head Start. In Tampa and Hillsborough Counties, we 
have an award-winning Head Start initiative. And the evidence that Head 
Start gives students a boost in life is very well known. Parents have 
to be involved. We wish all eligible kids could get that boost. Even 
now, before the congressional Republican cuts, we have 2,400 families 
on the waiting list and 1,000 infants and toddlers on the Early Start 
list. The Republican cuts again take us backwards. I hear from back 
home that 452 families will be told that there is no room for their 
child.
  They will also lay off 123 teachers just in my home county alone, 
because in the State of Florida they predict that they will have to lay 
off almost 2,000 teachers under your cuts.
  Schools and students. The Republicans again are off base in cutting 
my local schools, particularly the title I schools that serve kids that 
need a little extra attention. We estimate that Republicans will be 
eliminating 20 to 30 jobs in my home district that serve students that 
need that achievement gap boost. You are harming the high poverty 
middle and high school students also in the county across the Bay that 
recently was able to expand beyond elementary school.

                              {time}  1600

  Madam Chairman, rather than close the tax loophole for the oil 
companies that are making multi-billion dollar profits, the Republicans 
instead cut my local police and sheriff's departments, like the help we 
get under COPS for the anti-methamphetamine initiative and for our 
juvenile justice initiative to try to prevent gangs from forming in the 
counties. The youth initiatives have received national awards from the 
Attorney General, and it would be a real shame if we had to turn these 
back.
  Also, in my home county, we rely on some very robust ports in the 
Tampa Bay area as our economic engine. You are going to cut that 
support for that economic engine to dredge the canals and ports so the 
ships can come in, and we rely on those for jobs.
  You also are going to cut the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration. Now, after the Gulf of Mexico suffered the economic hit 
under the BP oil blowout, our coastal communities were hurt badly. The 
tourism industry, the seafood industry and our wildlife habitat 
suffered significant damage.
  So, coming from Florida, when you all say that you are going to turn 
your backs on our ability to monitor our oceans, that is very harmful, 
because clean oceans and clean beaches mean a healthy economy. 
Certainly closing the oil company tax loophole would be a wiser course 
of action.
  We all know how harsh it has been under the Great Recession with 
foreclosures. It has hit us especially hard, so hard that a local 
expert told me yesterday that the Republican budget cuts to the 
magnitude being considered would greatly and immediately increase 
homelessness, place more than 1,000 families at risk and put seniors on 
the street.
  Vote ``no'' on this CR.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1703.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Land 
     Acquisition'' shall be $2,750,000: Provided, That no less 
     than $2,250,000 in available, unobligated prior-year funds 
     shall be used in addition to amounts provided by this 
     division: Provided further, That the proviso under such 
     heading in division A of Public Law 111-88 shall not apply to 
     funds appropriated by this division.


                Amendment No. 193 Offered by Mrs. Lummis

  Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page 2122]]


  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia reserves a point of 
order.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 264, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,750,000)''.
       Page 264, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,250,000)''.
       Page 264, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $15,055,000)''.
       Page 264, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,500,000)''.
       Page 278, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $9,100,000)''.
       Page 278, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,400,000)''.
       Page 359, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $35,055,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Chairman, in December, I voted for that historic 
agreement between President Obama and Congress to keep American taxes 
low and to extend unemployment benefits. Now we are here to debate how 
to pay for that, and I have an idea about how to help pay for that.
  My amendment, No. 193, would strike the remaining funding for this 6 
months in this year totaling $35 million from the budgets of the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, the BLM and the Forest Service for the 
purpose of buying new Federal land. There are many alternatives to 
buying land with cash that would allow them to continue using Yankee 
ingenuity, and those include land exchanges.
  In my own State, we have over half a million acres that have been 
designated for disposal by Federal agencies because these lands don't 
fit into good land management, yet there are other lands that these 
same Federal agencies would like to acquire. They can do exchanges. 
They can do sales of this land that is designated for disposal and 
purchase other lands that work better for the fragmented land ownership 
patterns that we sometimes experience in the West. This is a much 
better alternative to using $35 million to pay cash to buy new land 
that adds to the management base and responsibility. At the same time, 
it would free up land that would be disposed of for people to buy and 
begin to earn a living on.
  So this is a way to create jobs, not to burden the Federal 
Government, and to recognize that good stewardship and good 
conservation can be practiced by good Federal and private partnerships. 
Those are the opportunities that are available if we adopt this 
amendment. It saves the taxpayers money and it helps pay for those 
people receiving unemployment benefits, and this is a win-win 
amendment.
  It is only a moratorium, and when we begin the next fiscal year, we 
would have an opportunity, from having reviewed projects between the 
Natural Resources Committee and the Interior Subcommittee of the 
Appropriations Committee, and have a better understanding of the 
ultimate goal of our land acquisitions programs within these Federal 
agencies.
  So, Madam Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairman, I withdraw the point of order, and I rise 
in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The reservation is withdrawn.
  The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairman, let me give this body the top 10 reasons 
to defeat this amendment.
  Number one, these are not really taxpayer dollars. The money comes 
from oil drilling receipts.
  Number two, this amendment represents a complete elimination of a 
bipartisan program that has existed for 45 years.
  The third reason is that this amendment will eliminate all the land 
and water conservation funding, even the few dollars remaining under 
the continuing resolution for management of these programs.
  The fourth reason is that this amendment would force land management 
agencies to end all the work on congressionally approved projects that 
are now underway using previous-year appropriations. It will hurt 
willing seller landowners by preventing agencies from finishing out 
commitments that are already in place.
  The fifth reason is that many landowners, ranging from elderly 
widowers and family trusts to ranchers and forest owners, have pressing 
financial needs that now depend on completion of these ongoing land and 
water conservation projects.
  The sixth reason is that by eviscerating the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, you are going to cause severe impacts on many others 
as well, including schoolchildren in the State of Wyoming. The 
amendment will bring to an immediate halt the negotiated agreement 
between the State of Wyoming and the National Park Service to transfer 
$107 million of school trust lands to Grand Teton National Park. 
Without the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the State can't meet its 
mandate to sell those lands and generate revenue to support its 
educational system.
  The seventh reason is that the amendment would frustrate land 
exchanges that are currently in process, many of which have been years 
in the making and are important for local private economic development 
and public land management.
  The eighth reason, under this amendment, the staff wouldn't be in 
place to even accept and process donations of important natural 
historic and other properties from the public.
  The ninth reason is that, without staff, right-of-way work to provide 
or maintain access for key public needs would be rendered impossible. 
The public would be unable to secure critically needed routes for fuel 
and wildfire management, watershed management, and access for sportsmen 
and other recreational use.
  The tenth reason is that the amendment would exacerbate an already 
draconian cut to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a program that 
is already paid for using a very small percentage of oil drilling 
receipts.
  This amendment should be rejected.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bishop of Utah). The gentleman from New Jersey 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOLT. In every State of the United States, the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund has been one of the most successful programs for 
preserving open space and our environment for future generations. It is 
important to note, as the ranking member has said, that the LWCF is not 
funded by taxpayer dollars but by fees charged to the industry for the 
extraction of oil and gas from public lands.
  Congress created the LWCF 45 years ago on the principle that some 
funds garnered from extraction of resources should be devoted to the 
preservation of other resources, in fact protecting permanently 
important lands and waters and access to recreation for all Americans. 
The LWCF is the only environmental preservation program in the Federal 
Government that is fully offset, and under the LWCF, polluters, not 
taxpayers, pay to protect the environment.

                              {time}  1610

  So cutting this program doesn't save taxpayer dollars. It robs 
taxpayers of the returns. And, actually, as in so many things in this 
continuing resolution, it does away with jobs.
  It's my belief that the LWCF should be fully funded at the authorized 
level of $900 million and the stateside program should receive at least 
$200 million to match State funds. This is what the President requested 
in his fiscal year 2012 budget--and I think that's a fair proposal. The 
draconian continuing resolution in front of us not only would zero out 
the stateside portion of the LWCF, it would cut the LWCF overall 
program to the lowest level in its history, ending much-needed balance 
between resource extraction and resource conservation. We should reject 
this amendment.
  The budget before us and this continuing resolution would really turn

[[Page 2123]]

back the clock on efforts to preserve open spaces. The stateside 
portion of LWCF, which I helped revive in one of my first acts when I 
came to this Congress, through its matching grants has saved over 
73,000 acres in my State of New Jersey; and in our 12th District, which 
I have the privilege to represent, we've received tens of millions of 
dollars in stateside LWCF funding. Every family that visits Veterans 
Park in Mercer County, the Sickles recreation area in the Borough of 
Shrewsbury, or the Colonial Lake playground in Lawrence Township, to 
name a few of the hundreds of LWCF projects, have benefited directly 
from this successful program.
  Preserving open space is more than an environmental issue. It really 
is a quality of life issue. It's not just about preserving beautiful 
vistas. It's about preserving nature's way of cleansing herself. It is 
about providing recreation and parks. It is particularly important for 
States east of the Mississippi, but it is no less important for all 50 
States.
  Every State has positive stories to tell about LWCF. Voters 
consistently have supported funding open space preservation. Recent 
polling found that 86 percent of Americans are supportive of 
reinvesting funds from offshore drilling fees to land and water 
protection.
  President Johnson said, ``If future generations are to remember us 
more with gratitude than with sorrow, we must achieve more than just 
the miracles of technology. We must also leave them a glimpse of the 
world as it was created, not just as it looks when we get through with 
it.''
  The Land and Water Conversation Fund is one of the few government 
programs that really benefits all Americans, does not use taxpayer 
dollars, and receives the overwhelming support of the Nation.
  I ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I understand and sympathize with the 
amendment that the gentlelady from Wyoming is proposing. We in the West 
sometimes have a little bit different point of view. Regardless of 
where the funding comes from, whether it comes from money that comes 
from oil sales or other things, when you're buying additional land in 
the States with 64 percent of Federal land currently, that causes some 
concern to westerners. So I understand why sometimes people from New 
Jersey and Massachusetts and other places that don't have a lot of 
public lands sometimes don't understand the same concern that we share 
out there.
  So I sympathize with what the gentlelady is saying in this amendment, 
but I would point out this started out in 2010. There was $450 million 
in the Land and Water Conversation Fund appropriated for this year. We 
have reduced that in this bill to $58 million. It already terminates 
funding for any new Federal land acquisition projects, an action we had 
to take in order to meet the subcommittee's allocation halfway through 
this fiscal year. All that remains is enough funding for managing 
projects funded in prior years and for emergencies and in-holdings for 
small acquisitions that make sense and save taxpayers money in the long 
run. So we've reduced this fund for any new land acquisition.
  I can't tell you what's going to happen in the next bill, but this 
one would allow for those in-holdings to be purchased, those things 
that are ongoing and currently under negotiation. So I think it's the 
appropriate thing to do. Terminating these programs will pull the rug 
out from under private landowners that we've already made commitments 
to, many of whom have fallen on hard times in this economy, who need to 
sell their lands and who would want to conserve those lands for the 
benefit of all Americans.
  So as much as I sympathize with what the gentlelady is trying to do, 
I think reducing all of the funds out of that account would be 
inappropriate. And I would oppose the amendment and urge all Members to 
oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is a nearly 50-year-
old promise to the American people that if we are going to allow giant 
oil companies like BP to deplete our ocean energy resources, we will 
take a small sliver of their massive profits and deposit it into a 
conservation fund.
  Since its creation in 1965, the Land and Water Conversation Fund has 
allowed Federal acquisition of critical acres inside the national 
parks, vital wildlife habitats, conservation easements, and water 
rights, as well as construction of local recreational facilities 
through grants to States. The fund has served as one of the most 
important tools in building and protecting our national resources 
heritage.
  The underlying bill devastates this revered program by slashing the 
amount to be paid out of the fund for conservation by almost 90 percent 
compared to current levels--almost 90 percent of a cut from current 
levels. The funding level contained in the underlying bill is the 
lowest proposed amount since the program was created in 1965. This is 
not a return to fiscal year 2008. This is not a return to fiscal year 
2009. This is a return to fiscal year LBJ. That's their goal, to go 
back right to the very beginning, and if they could, to the year before 
when it did not exist at all. That's the real goal of what this debate 
is trying to accomplish from the Republican side. And now this 
amendment proposes a further reduction in the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund.
  To be clear, this amendment does not save this money. Rather, it 
borrows this money from a trust fund and uses it to offset spending 
that has already occurred. This is diverting oil money from its 
intended conservation purpose in violation of a promise made to the 
American people. The Outdoor Industry Association points out that 
outdoor recreation contributes $730 billion annually to the United 
States economy and supports more than 6 million jobs. The Land and 
Water Conservation Fund is good for the environment, it's good for the 
economy, and it's a 50-year-old promise to every American.
  The cuts contained in the underlying bill would cripple the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund. Further cuts could kill it. This amendment 
should be defeated, and it should be seen in the context of this 
massive attempt by the new Republican majority to take the EPA and to 
turn it into every polluter's ally; to take the clean air and the clean 
water laws and begin to undermine them systematically; to take each and 
every one of these environmental areas that we've made tremendous 
progress in over the last 30, 40, and 50 years and begin to roll back 
those gains as though America was not the beneficiary.
  There's a good reason why America is the number one box office smash 
in the world, and that's because they look at us and they appreciate 
the commitment that we have made to the public health, to the public 
lands, to clean water, to clean air. And if we begin to undermine that 
image, then we will be hurting our country; we will be hurting our 
tourism; we will be hurting our ability to be able to pass on this 
planet in better condition than the way we found it. I urge that under 
no circumstances we support a provision that would accomplish all those 
goals.

                              {time}  1620

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Wyoming 
will be postponed.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.

[[Page 2124]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DINGELL. I rise more in sorrow than in anger about the 
legislation now before us.
  Mr. Chairman, all Members will agree we have to confront our budget 
deficit; but we have to do so, I think, in a sensible fashion. I grieve 
that that does not happen here. The cuts of the magnitude that we are 
making today and the places they are being made is destructive beyond 
belief. We risk a continuation or, indeed, a re-igniting of the 
recession which has plagued us, and we risk seeing to it that the great 
needs of our country are not met. We are looking at the strong 
possibility of a loss of jobs.
  The Economic Policy Institute estimates that 800,000 jobs will be 
lost, jobs that are not only important but that are, indeed, of major 
national priority, which are being put on the chopping block. Let us 
look at some of the things about which our Republican friends are 
dismissive.
  The education of our children: the continuing resolution will 
eliminate or reduce aid for almost 1.5 million low- and middle-income 
students paying for college.
  The safety of our food: these cuts here will hamstring the Food and 
Drug Administration's ability to implement critical food safety 
legislation, leaving us vulnerable to food-related illness and death.
  Americans' health: the continuing resolution cuts billions from the 
Department of Health and Human Services, over $1 billion from the 
National Institutes of Health, and over $1 billion from community 
health centers.
  The welfare of our homeless veterans: even housing vouchers for the 
homeless defenders of our country are eliminated. This is disgraceful, 
and indeed it is a dishonor to those who have served their country.
  Job training: the continuing resolution cuts billions from job 
training for displaced workers, turning our backs on those hit hardest 
by the recession.
  U.S. exports, which make jobs: even though both Democrats and 
Republicans have called for a reduction in the U.S. trade deficit, the 
continuing resolution severely cuts into our primary export promotion 
effort.
  Security on our streets: millions will be cut from the funding for 
State and local policing activities to fight drugs, gangs and 
terrorism. Moreover, the continuing resolution eliminates Federal 
grants that help police departments around the country hire or rehire 
police officers.
  Critical conservation programs: the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, all of which are 
solid, bipartisan programs, would either be completely or effectively 
gutted. In addition, this legislation prevents the Environmental 
Protection Agency from taking important steps to protect the waters of 
our Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, with unemployment hovering around 9 percent 
nationally--and much higher in my own State--and with many Americans 
still struggling through this recession, we cannot pull the rug out 
from under them. Politics aside, cuts of this magnitude would be 
unhealthy, untimely, and would provide uncertainty for our Nation as we 
try to get back on our feet.
  Instead of draconian cuts, we should be looking to see to it that we 
have wise and prudent cuts, while at the same time we have an 
investment in the future of our country and in our people. I do not see 
that in this proposal before us at this time.
  As the President has said, we can and, indeed, we must out-educate, 
out-innovate and out-build our competitors. That is the only way that 
the United States can achieve the kind of hope for recovery and 
economic activity that will benefit our next generations. Contrary to 
H.R. 1, we need to balance investments that will help our economy 
recover while also committing to decreasing the Federal deficit.
  It is clear that neither goal will be achieved overnight and that 
they certainly will not be achieved in this legislation. I stand ready 
to work with my colleagues and with the President to find responsible 
and effective ways to trim the budget, but I refuse to permit my 
Republican colleagues to gut vital government programs and bring our 
economic recovery to a standstill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I offer this motion to speak out against the 
blatant attack on clean water, which is contained in section 1747 of 
this Republican continuing resolution--a provision that does not save 
the taxpayer one single dollar.
  As we know, the Clean Water Act became law in 1972 with the stated 
purpose of cleaning up America's waterways and wetlands. Since then, 
this landmark legislation has served as a framework for protecting our 
drinking water from deadly toxins and for preserving the ecological 
integrity of our waterways.
  In my home State of New York, from the mighty waters of rivers like 
the Hudson to the many lakes of the Adirondacks, this legislation has 
been absolutely critical, where 95 percent of our population relies on 
public drinking water in some form. Unfortunately, in the last 10 
years, millions of acres of wetlands and thousands of miles of streams 
have lost Clean Water Act protection.
  Healthy streams and wetlands naturally filter and replenish our 
drinking water supplies. They absorb flood waters and protect 
coastlines and support local hunting, fishing, boating, and recreation 
industries. One-third of Americans get their drinking water from the 
types of streams that are vulnerable to pollution under recent 
rollbacks; and this bill includes a provision that would ban the EPA 
and the Army Corps of Engineers from working within their legal 
authority to mitigate that threat.
  This is an appropriations bill. According to my colleagues across the 
aisle, it is a bill with the sole purpose of reducing the deficit--a 
noble goal. However, the clean water rider in section 1747 of this bill 
does not save one dime of taxpayer money. It is not about funding. It 
is about restricting the legal authority of the EPA and the work of the 
Army Corps of Engineers in an underhanded ``politics as usual'' attack 
on our drinking water, on our environment, and on the thousands of 
recreational fishing, hunting and boating jobs that these water 
resources support.
  We may have banned formal earmarks this year, but this rider amounts 
to a handout to big polluters at the expense of basic public health 
protections.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. The legislation before us, the continuing resolution, I 
believe is a full-throttled extremist assault on the environment, on 
the public health of the American people, and on the jobs and economic 
well-being of our Nation as a whole. In these difficult times that we 
are in, it is the economy and jobs that should be the top priorities 
for this Congress and for the Republican majority.
  Mr. Chairman, this CR does irreparable harm to the environment, 
including to the air, water, our public lands, and to wildlife. The 
virtual elimination of public health protection by the reckless 
dismantling of the jurisdiction of the EPA and of the funding of the 
EPA will bring health crises to the American people and will endanger 
families and children.

                              {time}  1630

  Today, the President is announcing his great outdoors initiative, and 
at a time when he is asking for private, State, local, and Federal 
cooperation in the protection of public places in the enhancement of 
recreation and outdoor activities for the American people, this CR 
talks about the elimination of State and tribal wildlife grants which 
are essential in that coordination. It

[[Page 2125]]

talks about reducing by 90 percent the land water conservation fund, 
which is essential to promoting that cooperation and promoting the 
joint planning and joint jurisdiction of many of our special places in 
this country.
  And the upcoming punitive attempt to eliminate the national landscape 
conservation system will leave 800 public units abandoned without 
coordination and without the ability to plan for the future and to be 
coordinated in such a fashion that they save money and serve the 
American people the best.
  This CR places our special public places and lands on the endangered 
list, with irrational cuts in ending the shared responsibility to 
protect and conserve. Big Oil and gas and mining do not own these 
public places and lands--the American people do--and to turn to 
extraction as the only goal for these public lands denies history, 
ignores science, and welcomes the exploitation of a shared resource by 
the American people.
  If deficit reduction is the item on the agenda--and we all agree that 
we must confront that and be prudent, be pragmatic, and be realistic in 
cutting programs--then we also should put everything on the table 
because if it is indeed an issue of deficit reduction, then let's talk 
about some items that the majority did not put in their CR, some of the 
subsidies, some of the giveaways to industries that are part of the 
public land agenda and part of what happens within the Interior 
Department:
  Expensing reforestation expenditures, $600 million under public land; 
excessive percentage over cost depletion for nonfuel minerals, $500 
million; expensing exploration for nonfuel minerals, $400 million; 
intangible drilling costs, $8.9 billion; oil and gas royalty relief, 
$6.9 billion; domestic manufacturing and tax deduction for oil and gas 
companies, $6.2 billion. And if you keep going down that list with coal 
subsidies, nuclear industry subsidies, oil and gas subsidies, public 
land subsidies, you end up with a figure of $100 billion to $200 
billion.
  I'm not saying that all those cuts should be eliminated. I don't 
think we should take an axe to those areas. Some are productive and 
needed; but if we are going to scrutinize this budget, let's do it in a 
fair way that shares and balances what we're going through while we 
protect important things in our public lands and in our public health.
  I urge all my colleagues to balance public health of families and 
children, the public lands we love, the shared responsibility we have 
to clean air, water, public health, and our national resources, balance 
that with the narrow agenda that is confronting us today, an agenda 
that punishes taxpayers and the American people at the expense and for 
the profit of private oil and gas interests in this country.
  As we confront this issue, I would suggest to my colleagues that the 
legacy of our public lands and our environment, the legacy of our clean 
air and water, the public health of our people should be the priority. 
And if cuts need to be made, then all cuts should be placed on the 
table, all cuts should be looked at, including subsidies and including 
giveaways and deductions that are not part of the norm with our public 
dollars. That would be good for the taxpayer, and it would be good for 
the environment, and it would be good in reducing the deficit.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the underlying 
bill.
  I was an early and strong supporter of the President's bipartisan 
commission on the debt; and while I do not agree with all of the 
commission's recommendations, I recognize that their report to the 
President offered an important starting point for debate on an issue 
that affects the lives of every American, as well as future 
generations.
  In the report, the commission warns against disrupting our fragile 
economic recovery: ``We need a comprehensive plan now to reduce the 
debt over the long term. But budget cuts should start gradually so they 
don't interfere with the ongoing economic recovery. Growth is essential 
to restoring fiscal strength and balance. We should cut red tape and 
unproductive government spending that hinders job creation and growth. 
But at the same time we must invest in education, infrastructure, and 
high-value research and development to help our economy grow, keep us 
globally competitive, and make it easier for businesses to create 
jobs.''
  The bill before us fails to heed this sound advice, making 
shortsighted decisions that will sabotage our short-term recovery and 
undermine our long-term competitiveness. The reckless decisions made in 
this bill will lead to lost jobs in my district and throughout the 
Nation.
  Some of these job losses are obvious. Deep cuts to COPS and SAFER 
funding will ensure that we will lose thousands of police officers and 
firefighters protecting our communities nationwide; but other losses 
may be less obvious but just as painful.
  For instance, this legislation imposes deep cuts on the food Food and 
Drug Administration. Every single drug, vaccine, biologic and medical 
device must be approved by the FDA before it can ever be offered to 
patients. This means that not only do patients rely on the FDA but also 
American pharmaceutical and medical device companies that need an 
efficient and effective FDA to ensure that they can continue to 
innovate, grow, and create jobs.
  We are lucky to have a medical device industry in this country that 
is on the cutting edge of technological advances in medicine. What we 
should be doing is modernizing the FDA to make it more efficient, 
transparent, predictable, and rigorous; and to do that, we need to 
ensure that the FDA has all the necessary resources to conduct proper 
and speedy review of life-saving devices that not only benefit patients 
but our innovative businesses so that many of them can get to work 
putting people to work.
  For these private sector firms, cutting FDA resources means slowing 
down their approval process, driving some of them overseas, and losing 
many jobs here in our country as well. Likewise, cuts to local funding 
included in this bill will harm communities I represent, particularly 
the deep cuts to the Community Development Block Grant program. When I 
have asked leaders in the cities I represent how we can best help their 
recovery efforts, the answer has been unhesitating and unequivocal: 
CDBG funding.
  Last week, the city manager in my hometown of Lowell wrote, saying, 
``This is probably the most valuable tool that the Federal Government 
offers cities to address economic development, infrastructure, and 
community needs.''
  What is most discouraging about the attack on CDBG funding is that it 
does just what my colleagues say they support: it provides local 
flexibility, allowing stakeholders to decide what makes sense for their 
communities, while ensuring an extremely efficient use of funds. For 
example, last year in the city of Lowell, every $1 in CDBG funding 
generated more than $16 in additional funding.
  Over the years, Lowell has successfully used CDBG funds to redevelop 
a historic building into a much-needed senior center, turning a blight 
into a landmark and prompting the entry of private businesses nearby. 
It has used funds to spur the development of a mixed-use development 
that is bringing in millions of dollars in private development and 
restoring architectural treasures key to the city's identity. And it 
has provided seed money to nonprofits like the United Teen Equality 
Center, recognized nationally for the revolutionary work they're doing 
every day to curb gang violence in the city of Lowell.
  All of these actions have improved the quality of life and created 
jobs for Lowell residents, and none might have been made possible 
without this modest Federal investment.
  So I do not support the underlying bill, and I encourage its 
rejection.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page 2126]]


  Ms. McCOLLUM. I rise today to let the American people and all 
Minnesotans know that this continuing resolution is an unprecedented 
assault on our public health and environment.
  We know that the Federal budget is in crisis, and we know we must 
make tough choices; but those choices must be prudent, wise, and invest 
in our future. It should not put the basic health of Americans at risk. 
The Republicans' plan before us proposes to cut $3 billion from the 
EPA's budget, the largest percentage cuts to this critical agency in 30 
years.

                              {time}  1640

  The bill also proposes radical policy language to keep the EPA from 
carrying out its historic mission--a mission to protect the health of 
the American people--by limiting the EPA's ability to enforce the Clean 
Air Act and Clean Water Act.
  The EPA needs to be allowed to do its job, and it needs the resources 
to do this job. This bill would cause the EPA to lay off 80 percent of 
its employees who are responsible for protecting public health.
  State clean water programs are gutted by $2 billion in the Republican 
budget. Our local communities are struggling with their own budgets, 
and these vital funds allow for communities to hire engineers, 
construction workers, to upgrade water plants and drinking water 
projects.
  It is the EPA's investment in clean water that allows parents to know 
that if their child walks up to a drinking fountain anywhere in 
America, they can have the peace of mind that that water is safe for 
their child to drink. These irresponsible cuts jeopardize that peace of 
mind.
  The EPA does important work, and the work that the EPA does saves 
lives. I strongly oppose these reckless Republican cuts and radical 
deregulation proposals that endanger our communities. Congress needs to 
make difficult choices. Mr. Chair, I believe that these are foolhardy 
choices to shortchange clean air, clean water, and the health of our 
families.
  On Monday, I received over 1,000 valentines from Minnesotans, and 
those valentines were dedicated to the EPA. My constituents understand 
the important work that the EPA has done to protect our water, our 
land, and their health over the past 40 years. And it's work that they 
feel must continue. This continuing resolution would turn back all the 
tremendous progress we have made in cleaning up our environment, and I 
firmly reject it and urge my colleagues to do as well.
  Mr. Chair, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I appreciate Speaker Boehner and my 
Republican colleagues providing for an open discussion on this 
legislation, and I appreciate the Speaker's request that we be 
respectful of the process. I think that is important. But I think it is 
also important to come to the floor at this point to make a couple of 
observations that are critical to the people I represent.
  We are ready to move forward to actually deal with cutting the 
budget. We have already seen today a significant amendment adopted 
dealing with defense. There are opportunities for us to accelerate 
health care savings in Medicare. And from the beginning of my coming to 
this body, I have been working on a bipartisan basis to deal with 
reductions in unnecessary and wasteful agricultural subsidies.
  There are several items that we are dealing with in the continuing 
resolution that have nothing to do with saving money. Indeed, they are 
actually going to cost money in economic impact in my community and 
around the country.
  I note, for instance, the policy rider that would prevent the EPA and 
the Corps of Engineers from clarifying provisions of the Clean Water 
Act. As a result, millions of acres of wetlands and thousands of miles 
of streams will lose Clean Water Act protections. Because these affect 
so much of the headwater streams supply to public surface drinking 
water in my State, it could end up threatening drinking water quality 
for almost 2 million people.
  The cut to the State revolving funds are extraordinarily imprudent. 
This money leverages a great deal of activity and helps us deal with 
the massive infrastructure deficit with water quality. The American 
Society of Civil Engineers backs this up. We are talking about hundreds 
of billions of dollars we need to be investing in the next 20 years. 
Cutting the revolving fund is a dramatic step backward.
  In the area of air quality, there is a rider that attempts to prevent 
EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Now I will tell you, on 
its merits, dealing with greenhouse gases, that this will look foolish 
for the people who are proposing it to their children and 
grandchildren. They will wonder, What were you thinking?
  But put aside for a moment the problem of greenhouse gas emissions 
and carbon pollution. The language will have far-reaching--and I hope 
unintended--consequences. It would hinder EPA's ability to relax 
requirements on biomass plants that matter, for example, to my friend 
from Idaho and others in the Northwest. Very important to us. In 
addition, because of the way it was drafted, to prevent the issuance of 
permits, the language would impose a de facto construction ban on new 
sources in many States, including Oregon. This could block not only new 
or expanding power plants but refineries and large manufacturing 
plants. With unemployment rates high in my State and around the 
country, this construction moratorium hardly seems to make sense.
  The budget decimates the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This was a 
program that represented a commitment to offset some of the destructive 
effects of oil and gas production by preserving many of America's high-
quality recreational opportunities and vital wildlife habitat.
  This is violating a commitment that this body has made to finally 
allow these funds to flow. Unfortunately, future investments are going 
to be at risk if this CR passes with the existing funding level, 
missing opportunities to complete landscapes and protect watersheds and 
actually preventing agencies from meeting commitments already in place.
  My final concern at this point deals with the assault on energy 
investments. The United States invests approximately 0.5 percent of the 
trillion-dollar energy sector. If anything, we should be ramping this 
up. We are losing our competitive edge around the world. We are losing 
economic opportunities and opportunities to preserve the environment.
  Mr. Chairman, I have other concerns. There are other people who have 
things to say. But I hope that we can reject these provisions in the CR 
that actually make no difference in terms of reducing the budget and 
violate commitments that we have made.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1704.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service, Resource Management'' shall be $1,204,240,000: 
     Provided, That the amounts included under such heading in 
     division A of Public Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds 
     appropriated by this division as follows: by substituting 
     ``$20,945,000'' for ``$22,103,000''; and by substituting 
     ``$10,548,000'' for ``$11,632,000''.


              Amendment No. 295 Offered by Mr. McClintock

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 264, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(decreased by $7,537,000)''.
       Page 359, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $7,537,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, the National Fish and Wildlife 
Foundation is a government-established, government-financed, so-called 
private nonprofit set up to act as a conduit to

[[Page 2127]]

funnel public dollars to private environmental advocacy groups. The 
authorization for these grants has expired. Let me repeat that. There 
is no congressional authorization for this program, and yet the money 
just keeps rolling on.
  If we are actually serious about spending taxpayer money as carefully 
as they spend what they've got left after they've paid their taxes, 
then we ought to start by insisting that if Congress has not authorized 
a program, it should not be funded. If we ignore this principle, then 
why do we have any committees other than the Appropriations Committee?
  When Ronald Reagan very reluctantly signed the original legislation, 
NFWF's budget was $100,000. It has grown to $7.5 million, 75-fold. Nor 
was Reagan's signing statement exactly a ringing endorsement. Here is 
what he said: ``I must convey my serious reservations about the bill. 
The statements in the bill to the effect that the foundation shall be a 
nonprofit, charitable corporation and that it shall not be an agency or 
establishment of the United States are contradicted by the facts. 
Establishment of the foundation under the terms of the bill is an 
unwise and dangerous precedent.'' Well, Reagan had ``serious 
reservations'' about an unwise and dangerous precedent.

                              {time}  1650

  Reagan's ``serious reservations'' were well founded, and, at the very 
least, there ought to be a full congressional review of this program 
and a decision made to reauthorize it before we throw more money at it, 
money, by the way, if you haven't checked the newspapers recently, that 
we don't have.
  In this particular case, these are public dollars being funneled to 
private concerns, many of which have a disconcerting habit of then 
turning around and suing the government, that is, suing taxpayers over 
environmental issues. As we all know, all funds are fungible. So, in 
essence, through this agency, we are using taxpayer money to give to 
groups to sue taxpayers.
  Not all of these private foundations are even domestic. These grants 
have gone to such foreign groups as the Prakratic Society of India, the 
Centre for Dolphin Studies of Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University in 
Central Mozambique, and to the San Lorenzo Public Outreach Program in 
Panama.
  Mr. Chairman, with our Nation facing the worst peacetime fiscal 
crisis in our history, do we really need to continue these 
expenditures? And shouldn't we at least review the program and renew 
the authorization before we throw more money at it?
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. I oppose the gentleman's amendment that reduces the Fish 
and Wildlife Service by $7.5 million. The gentleman says that it is 
aimed at the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, although it doesn't 
say so. But whether it is or not, it's still a bad idea.
  The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation raises private funds with 
minimal Federal seed dollars. It should be encouraged, not eliminated. 
Last year, the foundation leveraged $40 million in Federal funds into 
more than $180 million for on-the-ground conservation projects. That's 
a leverage ratio of 4\1/2\ times.
  The Fish and Wildlife Foundation continues to be the best financial 
investment of public dollars to leverage private funds that pay for 
Federal priorities. In 1984, a quarter century ago, during challenging 
budget times, as well as we have today, the Foundation was created by a 
bipartisan group of Members of the House and Senate to leverage 
taxpayer dollars with private dollars.
  This amendment would affect more than 400 conservation projects this 
year in most U.S. States and territories. These programs are 
nonregulatory, community driven; they promote working landscapes and 
foster innovation. In this critical time of constrained budgets, you 
would think we would want the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 
more than ever.
  So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1705.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service, Construction'' shall be $23,737,000.
       Sec. 1706.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service, Land Acquisition'' shall be $15,055,000: Provided, 
     That no less than $2,500,000 in available, unobligated prior-
     year funds shall be used in addition to amounts provided by 
     this division.
       Sec. 1707.  Of the unobligated amounts under the heading 
     ``Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service, Landowner Incentive Program'' from prior year 
     appropriations, all remaining amounts are rescinded.
       Sec. 1708.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service, Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund'' 
     shall be $2,479,000: Provided, That the amounts included 
     under such heading in division A of Public Law 111-88 shall 
     be applied to funds appropriated by this division as follows: 
     by substituting ``$2,479,000'' for ``$29,000,000''; by 
     substituting ``$0'' for ``$5,145,706''; and by substituting 
     ``$0'' for ``$56,000,000''.
       Sec. 1709.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service, North American Wetlands Conservation Fund'' shall be 
     $0.


                 Amendment No. 338 Offered by Mr. Moran

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 265, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 274, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 274, line 25, after the second dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised that this continuing 
resolution eliminates all funding for the very successful, bipartisan-
sponsored North American Wetlands Consersation Fund. It cuts $48 
million.
  My amendment simply adds $50 million for the North American Wetlands 
Conservation Act. The offset is the EPA Diesel Emissions Program which, 
in fact, has been eliminated in the budget just proposed by the 
President.
  Now, both Houses unanimously reauthorized what's called NAWCA. That's 
the acronym for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act.
  We authorized it unanimously in 2006. The appropriation authorization 
for NAWCA was increased to $75 million for fiscal years 2007 through 
2012. It's wildly popular with all sportsmen and those who value our 
wetlands. So I'm surprised that H.R. 1 would eliminate it. This, 
frankly, shows what a meat axe approach has been taken here today by 
some in the Republican majority.
  The North American Wetlands Conservation Fund conserves our 
waterfowl, fish and wildlife resources while, at the same time, 
generating environmental and economic benefits. This is a successful 
partnership involving Federal, State and local governments and 
especially nonprofit organizations like Ducks Unlimited.
  The current CEO of Ducks Unlimited, Dale Hall, who incidentally was 
President George Bush's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director, wrote, 
and I quote, ``If these cuts and actions take place, waterfowl, 
waterfowl hunters and wetlands conservation would lose in a big way. In 
short, these actions would adversely affect all of us who care about 
and have funded wetlands and waterfowl conservation. We should 
remember, conservation in America pays for itself through the economic 
return from hunters, anglers and other outdoor enthusiasts.''
  I could not have said it better than the spokesperson, the CEO of 
Ducks Unlimited, who served in the Bush administration as the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service Director.

[[Page 2128]]

  Every Federal dollar provided by NAWCA must be matched by at least $1 
from non-Federal sources. Because the program is so effective, NAWCA 
funds are usually tripled or quadrupled on the local level.
  In short, this is both a highly popular and very successful program. 
Since its inception in 1989, more than 1,600 NAWCA projects have 
contributed to the conservation of more than 25 million acres of 
habitat across North America.
  The offset we use, the Diesel Emissions grant program, is a good 
program. But sometimes we have to make hard choices. The President's 
fiscal year 2012 request also eliminates the Diesel grant program so as 
to encourage the truck industry to increase its own diesel R&D.
  I ask the Members to support this amendment to protect our wetlands 
and wildlife and support the people who enjoy it.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I just want to rise in very strong support. This has been 
one of the most successful conservation programs. It brings in the 
private sector. They add two or three times to the contribution here. 
And I think this is a program that is very worthy and should be 
supported, and I hope the gentleman's amendment will be accepted.
  Mr. MORAN. I greatly thank the chair of the full committee.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The North American Wetlands Conservation Fund is a good program. I 
have no objections to that program. It's just a bad offset that the 
gentleman is choosing to move ahead with.
  Mr. Chairman, the $50 million that's included in the continuing 
resolution to support Diesel Emissions Reduction Act grants is a good 
program. Because heavy diesel engines can operate for 20 to 30 years 
after they enter service, many of these engines operating today were 
manufactured years before the modern clean air standards. DERA grants 
support projects to retrofit over 20 million aging diesel engines 
currently in use with modern technologies to reduce toxic emissions and 
improve air quality.
  This successful environmental program is supported by a unique broad 
coalition of environmentalists, industry, State and local governments. 
This program enjoys strong bipartisan support in both the House and the 
Senate and was reauthorized in the lame duck session last Congress.

                              {time}  1700

  Since 2008, the EPA has awarded over 500 DERA grants for projects 
nationwide. These grants leverage two State and local dollars for every 
one Federal dollar invested and provide $13 of economic benefit for 
every dollar spent. These leveraged dollars buy us cleaner air and more 
green jobs in every State in our Nation.
  Perhaps most importantly, recent studies indicate that black carbon, 
like that emitted from diesel engines, is the worst kind of pollution. 
The retrofit technology supported by DERA reduces black carbon 
emissions by 90 percent.
  The EPA's third ``National Assessment of Toxic Air Pollutants'' found 
that 2.2 million Americans now live in areas where the air they breathe 
increases their risk of cancer to levels deemed grossly unacceptable, 
one in 10,000. Given these findings, we owe it to our constituents to 
continue to support clean air technology.
  Mr. Chairman, DERA is a win-win program. It supports green American 
jobs and improves the air quality for all Americans.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in opposition to 
the gentleman's amendment, section 1709; however, I want to state for 
the record I am completely supportive of the program that he spoke of 
today.
  This particular amendment, however, seeks to eliminate funding for 
the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, a vital public health, environment 
and infrastructure program that was reauthorized with huge bipartisan 
support that Representative Calvert referred to, through a bill I 
authored last year. That is the purpose of my standing, because I was 
an author of that bill this year.
  DERA is a proven program that improves air quality by reducing diesel 
emissions. It has strong bipartisan support in both the House and 
Senate and from a diverse coalition of transportation, health, and 
environmental organizations.
  I thank Congressman Moran, and I applaud his leadership efforts to 
protect and preserve our environment and natural resources. He has been 
a stalwart advocate in the struggle to reduce harmful emissions from 
antiquated coal-fired power plants and protect green space and green 
infrastructure. However, today is a rare moment that he and I do not 
agree.
  DERA is a voluntary national and State-level grant and loan program 
that reduces the diesel emissions by upgrading and modernizing older 
diesel engines and equipment. For someone like me and my district, this 
is important. It's the lives of my constituents. By design, it looks to 
reduce the emissions from 20 million existing diesel engines in use 
today by as much as 90 percent.
  The $50 million designated for DERA is but half of the authorized 
level and already a 20 percent cut in the program from last year's 
funding. Although I would say, for the record, that it has not been 
terminated, it is merely a recommendation by the President at this 
time.
  Eliminating funding entirely would be a huge mistake and cause 
substantial detriment to the economic health and environmental 
interests, particularly of communities that are along port areas.
  Since DERA funding began in 2007, more than 3,000 projects nationwide 
have benefited from this program, creating considerable employment 
opportunities in the area of manufacturing, installation and servicing 
of emissions-related technology. The bill I authored this last year, 
which passed in December, will actually amplify job creation further by 
expanding the program and increasing the number of eligible 
beneficiaries.
  Additionally, DERA is widely considered one of the most cost-
effective Federal programs in the Nation. The EPA has estimated that in 
California alone the program averages more than $13 in health and 
economic benefits for every $1 that it receives in funding. Projections 
estimate that nearly 2,000 lives will be saved by 2017 in direct 
relation to DERA's impact on air quality.
  In my district, the positive benefits of DERA are far reaching, home 
to the two busiest container ports in the United States, the Port of 
Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach. On average, 35,000 trucks 
commute to and from these ports daily. By the year 2030, this number 
will be expected to triple. Just imagine for a moment the pollution 
caused by these vehicles in a single day.
  Now, think of those Americans who live along those freight corridors 
and are exposed to the pollutants on a daily basis. Would you want that 
for you and your family? In my district, these folks already suffer 
from asthma and cancer rates far above the national average, and it's 
documented. Air quality improvements and reductions in emissions are 
vital to the quality of life and health of these families and countless 
others throughout the Nation.
  I would also like to add that DERA is often mentioned in association 
with the trucking industry and freight movement. There is another 
important area where diesel engines are most frequently utilized and 
where DERA will

[[Page 2129]]

create a substantial necessary improvement in our public transportation 
and our school bus system.
  These vehicles are vital to the millions of Americans who rely upon 
them every day to get to work or school. Many of these folks include 
young children whose lungs and immune systems are still developing and 
who are especially susceptible to health problems. We owe it to these 
young people and their families to give the DERA program our full 
support and see its funding maintained.
  DERA has been endorsed by a large coalition of leading environmental 
health and transportation organizations who also believe in its 
effectiveness at protecting and creating jobs, promoting healthy 
economies and healthier citizens. At a time when our future is so 
heavily dependent upon economic growth, infrastructure investment, and 
improving the quality of life of average Americans, it seems 
counterintuitive to cut funding for a program that provides us with so 
many benefits.
  For these reasons, I urge opposition to the amendment, but I seek to 
work with my colleagues to support other funding to support the program 
laid out.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to very strongly oppose 
the gentleman's amendment and associate myself with the remarks of the 
gentlewoman from southern California.
  Before going to that, though, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a 
moment to express my deep appreciation to both the work of my chairman 
and his ranking member putting together what I consider to be overall a 
very, very fine bill. I know of Mike Simpson's concern about those 
issues that relate to our environment and the interior especially. He 
is a fabulous chairman, assisted today by a very, very fine young 
person who is his staff director, not so young as he used to be, Dave 
LesStrang. But this fine bill also is put together by a cross-section 
of great staffers who are doing all they can to improve the conditions 
in which we live.
  I rise to oppose this amendment in no small part because Ken Calvert 
and I over the years have shared the same problem. We live in a region 
known as the Inland Empire, and it is surrounded by beautiful, 
beautiful mountains. It's a wonderful area; but during much of our 
lifetime, indeed for decades, for 250 days-plus a year you could not 
see the mountains. How come? It wasn't because of the fog. It was 
because of 7 million automobiles starting their engines in Los Angeles 
and that which was spewed out going up against the mountains 
crystallizing with sunlight creating a thing called air pollution or 
smog. Indeed, the battle against air quality problems began many, many 
years ago for us, efforts to create a new standard of regulatory 
enforcement that would make a difference in the region.
  Today, you can see that beautiful valley almost every day of the year 
because of the progress that we have made in terms of cleaning the 
emissions from mobile sources. We are very proud of the fact that we've 
controlled stationary sources. It is easy to point a finger at the big 
smoke stack and say, Oh, my God, that's the problem. Indeed, we have 
solved 99 percent of all those emissions, and air quality still is a 
challenge.
  When you come to this question today, we are talking about serious 
efforts to improve the emissions that come largely from trucks, but 
diesel-using engines and those emissions have a tremendous impact upon 
air quality as well.
  Over the years, all of our efforts have saved I don't know how many 
tens of thousands of lives because we have improved the conditions in 
which these people have to live and breathe. But to suggest that we 
ought to begin to break down the progress being made on these engines 
by way of this relatively easy but, I must say, simplistic kind of 
transfer is a very, very big mistake.
  So, Mr. Chairman, in the strongest way I urge our members to vote 
``no'' on this $50 million transfer and recognize it's a lot more 
important to save the lives of those breathing foul air than to give a 
pittance to a very important environmental problem.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chair, I rise to express my opposition and urge my 
colleagues to oppose Amendment 338, which would zero out funding for 
the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, also known as ``DERA.''
  Studies have shown that diesel emissions are one of the most 
significant threats to public health. In order to address this problem 
in a manner that is both responsible to businesses reliant upon diesel 
engines, and to protect the general public from further exposure to the 
damaging emission from diesel engines, Congress enacted DERA.
  This voluntary program provided federal and state grant funding to 
retrofit diesel engines to reduce emissions. It has been endorsed by 
over 500 public health, environmental and industry supporters, 
including the American Lung Association, Caterpillar, and the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce.
  Retrofitting provides enormous environmental, and therefore health, 
benefits, but before this program was implemented, there was little 
economic benefit for vehicle and equipment owners to do so. It is 
estimated that DERA could reduce particulate matter emissions by 70,000 
tons, generate nearly $20 billion in economic benefit, and return $13 
of benefit for every one dollar invested.
  The incentives provided by DERA support voluntary rather than 
regulatory efforts to assist states meet air quality standards. Zeroing 
out funding for this program would effectively kill those efforts. It 
would hamper the development and demand of ``clean diesel'' technology 
as well as put a further strain on those workers who manufacture, sell, 
repair, or retrofit diesel vehicles. This program has great support on 
both sides of the aisle and should not be eliminated here today.
  For those reasons I again urge my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment.

                              {time}  1710

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1710.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service, Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation'' shall be 
     $4,430,000.
       Sec. 1711.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service, Multinational Species Conservation Fund'' shall be 
     $7,875,000.
       Sec. 1712.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service, State and Tribal Wildlife Grants'' shall be $0.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I was very disappointed that the committee 
zeroed out the State and Tribal Wildlife Grant program. I think this 
has been a great program that has helped the States do plans on how 
they can use their habitat to protect endangered species. This is the 
kind of work that is necessary so that we don't get future listings.
  I know my friend from Idaho and others are concerned about the 
Endangered Species Act and the number of listings, and we will talk 
more about that later, but this was a very important program and one 
that I as chairman strongly supported and actually created.
  So I just want to mention that I hope in conference we can at least 
maintain some level of funding for this program.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1713.  Before the end of the 60-day period beginning 
     on the date of enactment of this division, the Secretary of 
     the Interior shall reissue the final rule published on April 
     2, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 15123 et seq.) without regard to any 
     other provision of statute or regulation that applies to 
     issuance of such rule.

[[Page 2130]]

     Such reissuance (including this section) shall not be subject 
     to judicial review.


                Amendment No. 194 Offered by Mrs. Lummis

  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 266, strike line 12 and insert ``on February 27, 2008 
     (73 Fed. Reg. 10514 et seq.) without''.

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia reserves a point of 
order.
  The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank you 
personally, as well as your colleague from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and also 
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers of Washington, for your work on this amendment.
  The continuing resolution as written would reinstate a 2009 Fish and 
Wildlife determination that the gray wolf in Montana and Idaho should 
be removed from the endangered species list. This amendment would 
replace that 2009 determination with an earlier-approved Fish and 
Wildlife determination, the one made in 2008, and that expands the 
scope of delisting of the gray wolf to include the full range of the 
Northern Rockies wolf.
  Mr. Chairman, after gray wolves were introduced in 1995 into 
Yellowstone National Park in my home State and placed on the endangered 
species list under section 10(j), which is the nonessential 
experimental population section of the Endangered Species Act, a list 
was determined about what it would take to recover the species, when 
would we consider it recovered, and it was determined by experts at the 
time that the recovery would be complete if the population of wolves 
grew to 300 wolves with at least 30 breeding pairs. That was the 
target, that was the goal, 300 wolves, 30 breeding pairs.
  So how many wolves are there today, Mr. Chairman? Here we are, 16 
years later. There are more than 1,600 wolves and 113 breeding pairs. 
By every reasonable definition, the wolf has recovered, and yet these 
wolves remain on the endangered species list. They remain protected, 
even as they overwhelm and decimate other wild game herds. For example, 
in the Grovont, the moose population in terms of young calves has 
declined 90 percent, 90 percent, and it is due to wolf depredation.
  Wolves remain protected in each State because of court 
determinations, not because of science, and it is now time to be honest 
about the wolf and its recovery. Its continued inclusion on the 
endangered species list has everything to do with special interests and 
emotion and nothing to do with science. Organizations that repeatedly 
sue the government at taxpayer expense orchestrate these strategies and 
make people believe that the wolf is not recovered. The simple truth is 
the wolf is doing very well.
  Lest anyone be confused, my amendment will not create an open season 
on wolves. It will return management of the wolf populations back to 
the States, and they are the ones who suffer the effects of the wolves. 
It will allow for appropriate management of wolf herds, wolf herds by 
any definition, that have fully recovered.
  So it is time to be honest. It is time to delist.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The rule states, in pertinent part, ``an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
  The amendment imposes additional duties beyond what is legislatively 
authorized.
  So I now ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there any other Member who wishes to speak to 
this point of order?
  If not, the Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment imposes new duties on the 
Secretary to reissue a different final rule than is required to be 
reissued by the pending section. The amendment therefore constitutes 
additional legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1714.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 
     Operation of the National Park System'' shall be 
     $2,237,674,000.
       Sec. 1715.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Park 
     Partnership Project Grants'' shall be $0 and the matters 
     pertaining to such account in division A of Public Law 111-88 
     shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division.
       Sec. 1716.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National 
     Recreation and Preservation'' shall be $57,829,000, of which 
     $0 shall be for projects authorized by section 7302 of Public 
     Law 111-11.
       Sec. 1717.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Historic 
     Preservation Fund'' shall be $54,500,000: Provided, That the 
     amounts included under such heading in division A of Public 
     Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this 
     division by substituting ``$0'' for ``$25,000,000'': Provided 
      further, That the proviso under such heading in division A 
     of Public Law 111-88 shall not apply to funds appropriated by 
     this division.
       Sec. 1718.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 
     Construction'' shall be $171,713,000: Provided, That the last 
     proviso under such heading in division A of Public Law 111-88 
     shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division: 
     Provided further, That of the unobligated balances available 
     under such heading in division A of Public Law 111-88 and in 
     prior appropriation Acts, $1,000,000 is rescinded from 
     amounts made available for the (now completed) project at 
     Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina, and 
     $1,000,000 is rescinded from amounts made available for the 
     (now completed) project at Blue Ridge Parkway, North 
     Carolina, and such unobligated balances are reduced 
     accordingly: Provided further, That no less than $23,000,000 
     in available, unobligated prior-year funds shall be used in 
     addition to amounts provided by this division.
       Sec. 1719.  The contract authority provided for fiscal year 
     2011 by 16 U.S.C. 460l-10a is rescinded.
       Sec. 1720.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Land 
     Acquisition and State Assistance'' shall be $14,100,000: 
     Provided, That the amounts included under such heading in 
     division A of Public Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds 
     appropriated by this division as follows: by substituting 
     ``$0'' for ``$40,000,000''; and by substituting ``$0'' for 
     ``$9,000,000'': Provided further, That no less than 
     $3,400,000 in available, unobligated prior-year funds shall 
     be used in addition to amounts provided by this division: 
     Provided further, That section 113 of division A of Public 
     Law 111-88 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this 
     division.
       Sec. 1721.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, United States Geological 
     Survey, Surveys, Investigations, and Research'' shall be 
     $1,086,163,000: Provided, That the amounts included under 
     such heading in division A of Public Law 111-88 shall be 
     applied to funds appropriated by this division as follows: by 
     substituting ``$53,500,000'' for ``$40,150,000''; and by 
     substituting ``$4,807,000'' for ``$7,321,000''.
       Sec. 1722.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 
     Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management'' shall be 
     $239,478,000: Provided, That the amounts included under such 
     heading in division A of Public Law 111-88 shall be applied 
     to funds appropriated by this division as follows: by 
     substituting ``$109,494,000'' for ``$89,374,000''; and by 
     substituting ``$154,890,000'' for ``$156,730,000'' each place 
     it appears.
       Sec. 1723.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 
     Oil Spill Research'' shall be $10,632,000.
       Sec. 1724.  During fiscal year 2011, the Secretary of the 
     Interior, in order to implement a reorganization of the 
     Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and 
     Enforcement, may establish accounts and transfer funds among 
     and between the offices and bureaus affected by the 
     reorganization only in conformance with the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations reprogramming guidelines 
     described in the joint explanatory statement of managers 
     accompanying Public Law 111-88.

                              {time}  1720

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page 2131]]


  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, we're fortunate that the new Republican 
majority brought their proposal before this Congress the day after 
President Obama submitted his budget plan for next year. We are 
fortunate because it gives the American people the opportunity to 
compare very different approaches.
  The President's budget is tough but it is responsible. It's tough 
because it cuts non-security discretionary spending by $400 billion 
over the next decade to the lowest share of the economy since the 
Eisenhower administration. It's responsible because it steadily reduces 
the deficit while making targeted investments in areas like education, 
clean energy, infrastructure, and scientific innovation--investments 
that will strengthen our economy and make sure America wins the future 
in a competitive global marketplace.
  One of those key areas of investment the President has proposed is 
infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers--hardly a left-
wing group--issued a report card on the state of America's 
deteriorating infrastructure. They gave us practically failing grades--
mostly Ds and D-minuses--for the state of our roads, schools, transit, 
and drinking water--not grades that we would want our kids to bring 
home from school.
  So I'm very pleased that the President has announced that he wants to 
make critical investments in this area. As reported yesterday in USA 
Today, using the analysis of the Associated General Contractors--again, 
not a liberal group--his plan could create about 5.4 million 
construction jobs and 10 million more jobs in related industries in the 
broader economy. At a time when the construction industry is facing 
over 20 percent unemployment, those are exactly the kinds of smart 
investments that will help grow our economy. This proposal and this 
investment is supported by a diverse range of groups, from the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce to the AFL-CIO.
  The President's tough and balanced approach stands in stark contrast 
to the proposal we're seeing on the floor today. The proposal that 
we're talking about today, with very immediate and deep cuts, is a 
reckless approach when too many families are struggling to make ends 
meet, and it will do virtually nothing to address our long-term 
structural deficit.
  The Economic Policy Institute found that the proposal before this 
House today would likely put 800,000 Americans out of work. Indeed, 
that's why the bipartisan commission charged with reducing our deficits 
and debt, along with the bipartisan Domenici-Rivlin Commission, 
recommended against taking deep, immediate cuts. Yes, they're coming 
together now to put together a plan to reduce the deficit in a stable 
way. No, to immediate deep cuts that could hurt a very fragile economy.
  Let me read you exactly what the bipartisan commission on deficit and 
debts reduction said. ``In order to avoid shocking the fragile economy, 
the Commission recommends waiting until 2012 to begin enacting 
programmatic spending cuts.'' In other words, below the CR level. And 
that's exactly what the President's budget does.
  Why should we cut essential investments in Head Start and in 
education rather than eliminate huge taxpayer subsidies to the oil 
industry? In fact, just today, the GAO came out with a report talking 
about the huge bonanza oil companies are getting for lack of royalty 
payments on many of their lands.
  Just yesterday, in the Budget Committee, we had the OMB director, 
Jack Lew, testify. Mr. Lew reminded us that the last time he had 
testified before the Budget Committee was when he had served as the OMB 
Director for President Clinton. When he left office, he left the 
country with a $45.6 trillion surplus and an economy that during that 
8-year period added 20.8 million private sector jobs. Unfortunately, we 
know the end of the movie. Those huge surpluses were squandered. The 
previous administration to this one, the Bush administration, cut taxes 
for the very wealthy. And, through a number of other policy actions, 
turned a $5.6 trillion surplus into a sea of deficits. By the end of 
that 8-year period, 653,000 private sector jobs were eliminated.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope we will oppose this approach and accept the 
approach the President has presented.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1725.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
     Operation of Indian Programs'' shall be $2,336,865,000: 
     Provided, That the amounts included under such heading in 
     division A of Public Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds 
     appropriated by this division as follows: by substituting 
     ``$220,000,000'' for ``$166,000,000''; by substituting 
     ``$585,779,000'' for ``$568,702,000''; and by substituting 
     ``$46,129,000'' for ``$43,373,000''.
       Sec. 1726.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
     Construction'' shall be $216,100,000.
       Sec. 1727.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
     Indian Land and Water Claim Settlements and Miscellaneous 
     Payments to Indians'' shall be $46,480,000, of which $0 shall 
     be for the matter pertaining to Public Law 109-379.
       Sec. 1728.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, Departmental Offices, Office of 
     the Secretary, Salaries and Expenses'' shall be $117,336,000: 
     Provided, That the amounts included under such heading in 
     division A of Public Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds 
     appropriated by this division by substituting ``$10,636,000'' 
     for ``$12,136,000''.
       Sec. 1729.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, Departmental Offices, Insular 
     Affairs, Assistance to Territories'' shall be $78,516,000: 
     Provided, That the amounts included under such heading in 
     division A of Public Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds 
     appropriated by this division as follows: by substituting 
     ``$69,590,000'' for ``$75,915,000''; and by substituting 
     ``$8,926,000'' for ``$9,280,000''.
       Sec. 1730.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, Departmental Offices, Insular 
     Affairs, Compact of Free Association'' shall be $5,422,000: 
     Provided, That $2,104,000 of such funds shall be available 
     for section 122 of division A of Public Law 111-88.
       Sec. 1731.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, Departmental Offices, Office of 
     the Solicitor, Salaries and Expenses'' shall be $64,845,000.
       Sec. 1732.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, Departmental Offices, Office of 
     Inspector General, Salaries and Expenses'' shall be 
     $48,389,000.
       Sec. 1733.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, Departmental Offices, Office of 
     the Special Trustee for American Indians, Federal Trust 
     Programs'' shall be $168,115,000: Provided, That the amounts 
     included under such heading in division A of Public Law 111-
     88, as amended by Public Law 111-212, shall be applied to 
     funds appropriated by this division by substituting 
     ``$31,534,000'' for ``$47,536,000''.
       Sec. 1734.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, Department-wide Programs, 
     Wildland Fire Management'' shall be $769,897,000: Provided, 
     That the amounts included under such heading in division A of 
     Public Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds appropriated by 
     this division by substituting ``$150,000,000'' for 
     ``$125,000,000''.
       Sec. 1735.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, Department-wide Programs, 
     Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration, Natural 
     Resource Damage Assessment Fund'' shall be $6,320,000.
       Sec. 1736.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of the Interior, Department-wide Programs, 
     Working Capital Fund'' shall be $80,119,000.
       Sec. 1737.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Environmental Protection Agency, Science and Technology'' 
     shall be $790,510,000.


                 Amendment No. 376 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 273, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $64,100,000)''.
       Page 359, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $64,100,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to reduce the EPA's 
Science and Technology account by $64 million. It transfers the money 
into the Spending Reduction Account. Sixty-four million dollars is the 
level of the agency's astronomically expensive Science to Achieve 
Results, or STAR program, funded in fiscal year 2010. It's the intent 
of this amendment

[[Page 2132]]

to zero out this costly program for the rest of the year, something 
that due to procedural limitations will be accomplished by supporting 
the cut to the account's top line for that purpose and the agency's 
operational plan that will come forth in 2011.
  According to the EPA, the STAR program is the agency's primary grants 
program for funding extramural research in environmental science and 
engineering. In a recent press release, the EPA boasts that the 
taxpayer-backed awards ``ensure the best science is being used to 
protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land we build 
our communities on.'' What it doesn't mention is that these grants 
average 3 years and about $1 million.

                              {time}  1730

  This program was funded at roughly $60 million last year, and the 
President requested $87 million for it in fiscal year 2011. I believe 
the committee used $50 million as an assumed funding level based on 
this CR for the rest of the year.
  Don't get me wrong. If we were printing money in a basement and if we 
had plenty of it, this may be something we'd want to spend some money 
on. I'm sure something good comes out of it, but we're not in that 
situation now. We have a debt of $14 trillion, and we have an annual 
deficit now of $1.5 trillion. When we're funding research like this, 
just out of an account to give to grad students, I think it's time to 
question whether or not this is the time we should do this or not.
  Not all of the grants that are issued, obviously, are used for good 
research. It's not all above reproach. For example, here are just a 
couple of the reports that we've received for the research that was 
done on these topics:
  Environmental Regulation and Productivity Benefits in the Paper 
Industry;
  Estimating Ownership and Use of Older Cars;
  Transforming Office Parks into Transit Villages;
  Public Opinion on Environment and Water Quality Management in the New 
York City Watershed;
  Ironically, there is a study on Experimental Programs to Stimulate 
Competitive Research.
  I thought that's what this program does.
  I've often talked about a lot of the earmarks we used to have that 
were just simply earmark incubators that begot more earmarks. It seems 
that some of the funding for studies like these are studies that beget 
further studies.
  If we can't move in now and say, hey, maybe we ought to slim back a 
little and save a little money for the taxpayer--remember, the money 
saved here will go into the spending reduction account and can be 
applied against this year's deficit--then we have to ask ourselves:
  How can we go back to our constituents and explain, ``Sorry, that $50 
million was better spent giving out research dollars to study 
experimental programs to stimulate competitive research or to transform 
office parks into transit villages or for public opinion on the 
environment and water quality management in the New York City watershed 
or for environmental regulation and productivity benefits in the paper 
industry?''
  Let's say to the taxpayer that we are serious here, that we are 
serious about this debt and this deficit. Let's vote for this amendment 
and put $50 million into the spending reduction account.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words 
in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chair, the scale of this reduction to EPA science 
shuts down EPA's STAR research grants this year and next, affecting 
researchers in universities throughout the Nation. The Science to 
Achieve Results program, whose acronym is STAR, grants money to 
leverage innovative, cutting-edge research with universities across the 
Nation.
  Now, I don't know about the way they have titled some of these 
grants, but I suspect that the gentleman doesn't know much more than I 
do about the specific grant itself, other than the title.
  What I do know is that this amendment ends funding for the Children's 
Health Research Centers, which focus on the study of children's 
environmental health hazards, including asthma and exposure to 
chemicals.
  It ends funding for research for four EPA air research centers that 
focus on the health effects of air pollutants on all ages of Americans, 
especially the most physically vulnerable and those in smog-laden 
communities.
  It ends funding for EPA's groundbreaking computational toxicology 
research effort, which enables us to screen literally thousands of 
chemicals at one time. I've seen how this works, and it's 
extraordinarily productive and cost-efficient. It screens chemicals for 
environmental health hazards, and it saves millions of dollars in the 
process. These innovative and cost-saving tools also offer the 
potential to greatly reduce our dependence on animal testing.
  The amendment ends funding for critical research to assess risks of 
nanotechnology and to develop approaches to ensure the safe development 
of nano materials.
  The amendment also wipes out EPA's STAR academic research fellowships 
program, affecting 350 current and future fellows and creating real 
economic hardship in the midst of our depressed economy. Cutting 
funding for the STAR fellows program eliminates the opportunity to 
develop the future generation of the best scientific minds to address 
21st century environmental problems with new and innovative scientific 
and technological solutions.
  Now, it's not the end of the world, but it will be the end of a 
program that works very well--a program that recruits, trains, and 
integrates some of the very best minds in preserving and protecting our 
environment.
  So, for those reasons, I would urge the rejection of this amendment, 
Mr. Chairman.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, in the CR, we have already proposed deep cuts with 
tough choices. In the Interior and Environmental section, we have 
proposed to cut $4.4 billion and to eliminate 26 different programs.
  The STAR program competitively funds research grants and graduate 
fellowships in numerous environmental science and engineering 
disciplines.
  I would note, as the gentleman from Arizona knows, that this is 
competitively awarded in that they actually, as I said, compete for 
these.
  The EPA receives approximately 2,000 to 2,500 proposals each year, 
and it funds about 150 research grants and 125 graduate fellowships.
  I'd be a little leery about coming down here and just naming off the 
title of what a research project is and then saying that it's silly, 
because I don't know. I don't know exactly what they're trying to do 
with some of these things. You actually need to dig into it and find 
out what they're trying to find out with some of these research grants.
  A few years ago, some people did this with, I think it was, the 
National Academy of Sciences research grants. I can remember some of my 
colleagues brought down amendments to defund this research grant or 
that research grant. One of them was to defund a research grant on 
studying brown fat in panda bears.
  Of course, we all on the floor went, Wow, that sounds silly. Why are 
we studying brown fat in panda bears? Can't we actually study brown fat 
in American bears?
  When I called the National Academy of Sciences, what I found is that 
who supported that research was NASA, because, if you're ever going to 
do deep space research, you need to know something about brown fat. 
Guess what animal has more brown fat than any other animal on Earth? 
Panda bears. That's why they were doing it.

[[Page 2133]]

  So just to look at the title of a research project is kind of a silly 
way to propose eliminating it and making fun of the program. Some of 
them may be silly--I don't know--but I know these are peer-reviewed, 
that they actually are competitively granted, and that the gentleman 
from Arizona has always been concerned that we give earmarks that are 
not competitively granted. Here we have a program that is competitively 
granted, so that seems, to me, to be the right way to do it.
  Like many other EPA programs, the CR reduces the STAR grant funding. 
We did so by applying a $10 million reduction to fund the grants at $51 
million in the CR, which is $8 million below the 2008 level. Therefore, 
while we understand the intent of the amendment is to eliminate all 
funding for the STAR grants, there is no longer $61.4 million in the CR 
to reduce for STAR grants, and other research programs would need to be 
reduced based on the way the amendment has been drafted.
  In addition, I believe we must maintain our scientific 
competitiveness as we work to bring our fiscal house in order, and 
zeroing out this program, I don't believe, is in the best interest of 
our country or that it is the right thing to do.
  This is a program that we should--and will--discuss on the record 
with the EPA during the 2012 budget hearings, and we will either build 
the case for further reductions or an elimination of the program, or we 
will have a better understanding of why we should look elsewhere for 
additional cuts.
  Therefore, I recommend my colleagues vote ``no'' on this amendment 
given that it would unintentionally cut the EPA's research by more than 
that which is in the CR for the STAR grants and given that we will be 
taking a look at this during our hearings. The gentleman sits on the 
committee, and will be, obviously, involved as we have the EPA before 
us for our oversight hearings.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  1740


                 Amendment No. 407 Offered by Mr. Hall

  Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 273, after line 3, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 1738.  The Environmental Protection Agency is directed 
     to enter into a contract, within 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, with the National Academy of Sciences 
     to perform a comprehensive review of non-mercury hazardous 
     air pollutants emitted by electric generating units and 
     industrial boilers, and related health and economic data 
     (including impacts on job creation and energy price, supply, 
     and reliability) associated with potential regulation of such 
     non-mercury hazardous air pollutants. The National Academy of 
     Sciences shall prepare recommendations on appropriate 
     regulatory standards for addressing non-mercury hazardous air 
     pollutants and shall establish appropriate health-based 
     exposure standards for such emissions. Upon completion of the 
     study, the National Academy of Sciences shall report findings 
     and recommendations to the Environmental Protection Agency 
     and the Congress within 24 months of entering into the 
     contract. The Environmental Protection Agency is discouraged 
     from issuing any regulatory determination for non-mercury 
     hazardous air pollutants, including a maximum achievable 
     control technology standard for non-mercury hazardous air 
     pollutants from electric generating units and industrial 
     boilers, until the Environmental Protection Agency fully 
     reviews the results and recommendations of such study.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment 
directing the United States Environmental Protection Agency to enter 
into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to perform a 
comprehensive review of non-mercury hazardous air pollutants emitted by 
electric generating units and industrial boilers, recognizing the 
boiler maximum achievable control technology, called MACT, is moving 
toward the end of the rulemaking process while the utility MACT will 
debut soon.
  My amendment requires that the review provide for health and economic 
data, including impacts on job creation, energy price, supply and 
reliability associated with the potential regulation of non-mercury 
hazardous air pollutants.
  The Clean Air Act regulates two kinds of air emissions: criteria 
pollutants, which are high in volume; and hazardous air pollutants, 
which are low in volume but can be toxic.
  Folks are familiar with the most noteworthy of the hazardous air 
pollutants for utilities and industrial boilers, mercury. Let me be 
clear, my amendment does nothing to affect mercury controls. The 
amendment focuses only on those hazardous air pollutants other than 
mercury. EPA simply fails to do all the necessary homework when it 
comes to potential regulation of hazardous air pollutants other than 
mercury.
  This amendment asks the National Academy of Sciences to assist EPA in 
doing its homework and encourages EPA to listen and encourages EPA to 
learn. This will assist EPA in establishing a clear and direct 
administrative record for non-mercury hazardous air pollutants; and 
without adequate study, regulations in this area could place jobs and 
economic output at risk, while threatening household budgets.
  The power sector faces an avalanche of regulations from EPA, and it's 
important to get each of them right and correct. A recent executive 
order laid out a new review process for regulations and asked that the 
agencies consider costs and how best to reduce burdens for American 
businesses and consumers.
  The amendment echoes the need for responsible regulations that 
protect health and environment but also provide for reasonable rates 
and dates. The EPA maximum achievable control technology rule for 
industrial commercial and institutional boilers and process heaters 
could impose tens of billions of dollars in capital costs at thousands 
of facilities across the country.
  I, along with a large number of my colleagues, sent a letter to EPA 
Administrator Lisa Jackson expressing our concerns with the proposed 
rule. It's my understanding that although the boiler MACT rule will 
come out later this week, upon reconsideration of the rule, the 
information gathered by the review required under this amendment may be 
useful.
  I remain concerned as EPA moves toward a utility MACT rule. 
Logically, I bring this amendment to the floor today to protect a 
simple way of thinking. The government should not regulate without 
sound science to back it up. Let's remind EPA to slow down and allow 
for reasoning along with regulation.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I understand the concern of the gentleman 
from Texas, and we pledge to work with him as the EPA comes before our 
committee to address this issue, but I must insist on my point of 
order.
  I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to 
change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation 
bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in 
pertinent part: an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not 
be in order if it changes existing law. This amendment gives 
affirmative direction in effect.
  I ask for a ruling by the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order? Seeing none, the Chair finds that this amendment includes 
language imparting direction. The amendment,

[[Page 2134]]

therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 
XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LUJAN. I rise today in opposition to the drastic cuts in this 
continuing resolution and the amendments that make further cuts that 
threaten to weaken our economy and destroy jobs.
  It is critical that while we face growing budget constraints we do 
not shortchange investments that will create jobs or provide vital 
services that New Mexicans rely on.
  Unfortunately, many of the cuts proposed in this bill and in a number 
of amendments would negatively impact our communities in New Mexico. 
For example, in the wake of the natural gas outages that left thousands 
of homes across the State without heat, this bill cuts the Low Income 
Home Energy Assistance Program that helps working families, senior 
citizens, and disabled individuals heat their homes.
  At a time when New Mexico needs critical investments in education so 
that we can prepare our children to be the next generation of leaders, 
the House Republican plan makes drastic cuts to education at all 
levels. Beginning with early education, Republicans cut the Head Start 
program, which helps build a strong foundation for New Mexico's 
children. The bill also cuts programs that help poor school districts. 
With more than one-third of New Mexico's students failing to graduate 
from high school, we must do more, not less, to ensure our children 
succeed. In addition, the Republican bill cuts Pell Grants that our 
young adults rely on to help make college more affordable.
  Arbitrary cuts to New Mexico's national labs that are contained in 
this bill will hinder their ability to promote U.S. competitiveness and 
job creation.
  We're ending our ability to win the race before we can even begin. 
Instead of making these cuts, we need to outpace the competition. We 
need to out-educate and out-innovate the rest of the world in order to 
grow our economy and put people back to work right here in New Mexico.
  And as we debate the proposed amendments in this section of the bill, 
I am extremely concerned with amendments that will be proposed today 
that make cuts to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In New Mexico, 
we take pride in our beautiful landscapes and the protection of our 
water. The LWCF has helped to protect dozens of New Mexico icons, 
including Tent Rocks National Monument, Valles Caldera National 
Preserve, Rio Grande River Gorge, Santa Fe National Forest, and 
Petroglyphs National Monument, just to name a few.
  These attacks on the Land and Water Conservation Fund would eliminate 
a bipartisan program that has existed for 45 years by preventing 
revenues deposited in the LWCF account from being used for their 
authorized purposes, such as protecting public lands and promoting 
recreation.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund was established by Congress in 
1964 as a bipartisan conservation offset for offshore oil and gas 
drilling. Under current law, Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leases 
and royalty receipts are deposited in a dedicated LWCF account in the 
Treasury. However, only a fraction of the annual receipts deposited in 
the LWCF have been appropriated, despite a surplus of over $17 billion.
  In New Mexico, outdoor recreation is an integral part of the economy, 
and I know when I visit with many of our colleagues here in the 
Congress, Democrats and Republicans, everyone is eager to get out to 
New Mexico. The Outdoor Industry Association reports that recreation 
contributes about $730 billion annually to the U.S. economy, supports 
nearly 6.5 million jobs across the country, and generates $88 billion 
in annual State and national tax revenues.
  A recent study by The Trust for Public Land found that every $1 
invested in the LWCF returns $4 in economic value. Protecting the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund will expand opportunities for all Americans 
to have access to parks and natural areas for outdoor recreation and 
for hunting.
  Protecting the Land and Water Conservation Fund has immediate 
relevance to our efforts to create jobs in this country, and it is 
critically important that we ensure funding for this important Federal 
program is protected, while also working together to find a permanent 
solution to LWCF funding shortfalls over the long term.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose these amendments and vote ``no'' on 
this shortsighted spending bill that will hurt families and put more 
people out of work. While Republicans say, So be it, to chopping 
American jobs, the people of New Mexico deserve better.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1738.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Programs and 
     Management'' shall be $2,571,099,000: Provided, That of the 
     funds included under this heading $305,784,000 shall be for 
     the Geographic Programs specified in the explanatory 
     statement accompanying Public Law 111-88: Provided further, 
     That of such amount for Geographic Programs, $225,000,000 
     shall be for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative; 
     $40,000,000 shall be for Chesapeake Bay; and $20,000,000 
     shall be for Puget Sound.


                 Amendment No. 84 Offered by Mr. Pompeo

  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       On page 273, line 6, insert ``(reduced by $8,458,000)'' 
     after the aggregate dollar amount.
       On page 359, line 13, insert ``(increased by $8,458,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to return just under 
$8.5 million to the United States taxpayers by sending $8.5 million to 
the deficit reduction account.

                              {time}  1750

  In November, America elected a different set of leaders to this House 
of Representatives. They elected a set of leaders who understand job 
creation. But the EPA has not gotten the message. This Congress has 
refused to pass cap-and-trade and yet EPA continues down the road to 
try to implement cap-and-trade through regulations when there is no 
statutory authority to do so, and it's beyond its constitutional 
powers.
  My amendment takes on only one very costly piece of the EPA's effort 
to destroy jobs, the Greenhouse Gas Registry. I'm not against bridal 
registries or even the registration of property deeds, but forcing 
businesses to comply with these unnecessary and burdensome regulations 
will destroy jobs in Kansas and all across America. This registry 
drives up the cost of doing business all with the asserted mission of 
satisfying the left's obsession with regulating every nook and cranny 
of our existence.
  Now EPA would, I'm sure, tell you that they are simply collecting a 
little bit of data on greenhouse gases, that this registry is just a 
very innocent effort to learn a little bit more about who is emitting 
greenhouse gases, who or what. But this data is the very foundation of 
the EPA's effort to pursue its radical anti-jobs agenda. Indeed, 
continuing the Greenhouse Gas Registry at currently funded levels will 
permit the EPA regulatory nose inside the job-destroying tent. We 
cannot head down this path.
  The amendment I am proposing is very modest. In 2006, the registry 
had $3.2 million appropriated. That was increased to almost $16 
million. I'm simply trying to roll back the amount of money that this 
registry has to 2008 already bloated levels.
  Mr. Chairman, until about 45 days ago, I was in the private sector. I 
was running a small business. I can attest to you that this Greenhouse 
Gas Registry, an attempt to implement cap-and-tax, will destroy jobs in 
Kansas; it will increase the cost of manufacturing for every Kansas 
airplane manufacturer; it will increase the cost of energy for every 
Kansas farmer, and it

[[Page 2135]]

will increase the cost of energy for every Kansas family.
  With unemployment at record levels and energy prices already high, 
America cannot afford this additional government mandate, and our 
taxpayers would be well served by reducing the funding to this 
misguided Greenhouse Gas Registry. Please join me in rolling back to 
2008 levels the amount of funds appropriated for the Greenhouse Gas 
Registry.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. I rise in opposition to the Pompeo amendment which would 
basically strip all funding from EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting 
Program. It's part of an effort to ignore what scientists tell us is 
the most serious environmental problem of our time--climate change.
  Some Republicans have introduced legislation that would repeal a 
scientific finding that greenhouse gases pose a danger to human health. 
The underlying bill we're considering says that no stationary source no 
matter how large should ever have to reduce its carbon pollution. This 
amendment goes even further. It says that we should not even bother to 
find out how much pollution is being put into our air. I guess you 
could call it the ``ignorance is bliss'' amendment.
  The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program simply requires the largest 
sources of carbon pollution--power plants, refineries, and the very 
largest factories--to tell EPA and the public how much they pollute. If 
we are ever going to deal responsibly with this pollution, we need to 
know where it is coming from and have some idea of how much is being 
emitted.
  This amendment is yet one more example of putting profits and 
pollution ahead of people and public health.
  Americans understand that pollution is dangerous to their health. The 
scientists tell us that. We know it intuitively. It makes us sick. 
Let's allow EPA to fulfill its legal responsibility to collect this 
information.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose the Pompeo amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chair, I want to congratulate the gentleman from 
Kansas, one of our new Members, Mr. Pompeo, for not only a thoughtful 
amendment but an amendment when he is jumping right into the fray some 
45 days after he has assumed office here. I think I was here for about 
2 years before I even gave my first floor speech. So congratulations to 
him.
  Sadly, however, we have to oppose your amendment. This was an account 
that the committee and the staff looked at hard as the CR was being 
prepared. It has been reduced by $5 million in the continuing 
resolution. It was at $16 million. It's down to $11 million in the CR. 
The feeling continues to be that cutting it further would be 
irresponsible because cutting the funding does nothing to change the 
mandate that's in the law of March 31 of this year that the industry 
has to report their emissions by that date.
  Since this is the first time through this reporting requirement, 
there are obviously a lot of questions that businesses and industries 
all across the country have, and they are calling the EPA for technical 
assistance on how to be in compliance. If the program is reduced, as 
the gentleman's amendment would suggest, it will leave companies high 
and dry with a reporting requirement with no one on the other end to 
answer the telephone to help them out to meet their obligations. 
Considering that, we have felt that we could achieve the $5 million in 
savings now.
  And I can tell the gentleman that it's at least a majority of the 
committee's feeling that we will review and address this issue in a 
more comprehensive manner as we proceed with the 2012 budget. As such, 
I recommend that our colleagues vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas will 
be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1739.  The matter pertaining to planning and design of 
     a high-performance green building to consolidate the multiple 
     offices and research facilities of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency in Las Vegas, Nevada under the heading 
     ``Environmental Protection Agency, Buildings and Facilities'' 
     in division A of Public Law 111-88 shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated by this division.
       Sec. 1740.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Substance 
     Superfund'' shall be $1,273,765,000: Provided, That the 
     matter under such heading in division A of Public Law 111-88 
     shall be applied to funds appropriated by this division as 
     follows: by substituting ``$1,273,765,000'' for 
     ``$1,306,541,000'' the second place it appears; by 
     substituting ``September 30, 2010'' for ``September 30, 
     2009''; and by substituting ``$24,527,000'' for 
     ``$26,834,000''.
       Sec. 1741.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Environmental Protection Agency, Leaking Underground 
     Storage Tank Trust Fund Program'' shall be $106,101,000, of 
     which $71,671,000 shall be for carrying out leaking 
     underground storage tank cleanup activities authorized by 
     section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6991b(h)).
       Sec. 1742.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Environmental Protection Agency, State and Tribal 
     Assistance Grants'' shall be $2,716,446,000: Provided,  That 
     the amounts included under such heading in division A of 
     Public Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds appropriated by 
     this division as follows: by substituting ``$690,000,000'' 
     for ``$2,100,000,000''; by substituting ``$830,000,000'' for 
     ``$1,387,000,000''; by substituting ``$10,000,000'' for 
     ``$17,000,000''; by substituting ``$10,000,000'' for 
     ``$13,000,000''; by substituting ``$0'' for ``$156,777,000''; 
     by substituting ``$70,000,000'' for ``$100,000,000''; by 
     substituting ``$50,000,000'' for ``$60,000,000''; by 
     substituting ``$0'' for ``$20,000,000''; and by substituting 
     ``$1,056,446,000'' for ``$1,116,446,000''.


                 Amendment No. 379 Offered by Mr. Reed

  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 274, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 274, line 22, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 359, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment.
  But before I talk about that, I want to say that I am proud to be a 
part of this process. Last night, I heard one of my colleagues say that 
what we should do is, because the President threatened to veto this 
process at the end of the day, we should pack it up, go in the back 
room and try to resolve our differences there.
  To me, this is what the process was all about, to have this debate on 
the floor of the House so that we can have an open and vigorous debate 
about these spending issues because, ladies and gentlemen, today we 
face a national crisis, and that national crisis is a national debt 
that is going to destroy us as a nation and destroy it for our children 
and our grandchildren. So I am proud today to stand up and say that we 
need to shine the light on every aspect of every dollar that is spent 
in our Federal budget.
  And today I rise to ask that we rescind and amend the continuing 
resolution to remove $10 million of spending on a sewer project in 
Tijuana, Mexico. When we are borrowing 40 cents on every dollar on the 
backs of our children and our grandchildren, I ask the question: Why 
are we spending $10 million so that a sewer could be constructed in 
Tijuana, Mexico?

                              {time}  1800

  Now, I understand and I empathize with my friends from San Diego and 
that area where waste apparently

[[Page 2136]]

washes on the shore from Tijuana because they're not acting responsibly 
with their matters.
  But I say this: today it is to hold the country of Mexico accountable 
for the situation in Tijuana. And rather than use our dollars, our 
borrowed dollars that are being absorbed by our children and 
grandchildren, we hold them accountable. And I think this is exactly 
what we should be doing and standing and calling out this kind of 
wasteful spending, in my opinion.
  And I am proud and ask that my colleagues join me in approving this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from Ohio is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chair, again, as with Mr. Pompeo's amendment, the 
gentleman from Kansas, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed) is also a 
new Member of the body, and I commend him for coming to the floor and 
offering this thoughtful amendment.
  For those of us who have been here a little while, the seat which Mr. 
Reed holds used to belong to our dear friend Amo Houghton, who was a 
friend and a champion for many issues for many years in this body.
  And although we welcome Mr. Reed to our company, we oppose his 
amendment. In the CR we have reduced the U.S.-Mexico border program by 
$7 million from $17 million in 2010 to $10 million in the continuing 
resolution. It's a 41 percent decrease. This action taken on behalf of 
the committee reduces the CR level to a level below the increase that 
was added in 2010 by the previous majority party, over and above 
President Obama's request.
  This is a program that we plan to have active discussions on with the 
EPA during the 2012 budget hearings, and we'll either build the case 
for further reductions, or we will have a better understanding of why 
we should look elsewhere for additional cuts based upon programmatic 
needs.
  Therefore, while I congratulate my friend and new colleague from New 
York, I recommend that our colleagues vote ``no'' on this amendment, 
given that we have achieved what we intended to achieve via the CR, and 
that is to take the necessary first step at past programmatic increases 
and allow for a deliberative process in 2012 to examine the true needs 
of this program.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 415 Offered by Ms. Edwards

  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 275, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $200,000,000)''.
       Page 274, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,816,446,000)''.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I understand that a point of order is 
reserved and, of course, I have the amendment as modified with language 
that would ensure that the amendment is budget neutral. I would ask 
unanimous consent for the modified amendment that is at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Maryland?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I object to the modification of the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
  The gentleman from Idaho has reserved a point of order.
  The gentlewoman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before you takes rescinded 
funds, increases the amount of State and Tribal Assistance Grants to 
make sure that we can really fund our water and sewer infrastructure. 
The continuing resolution really deals a death low to our water and 
sewer infrastructure in this country. That means jobs all across the 
country in every single State.
  I would ask support of the amendment and note that in April 2000, the 
Water Infrastructure Network released its first report, ``Clean and 
Safe Water for the 21st Century,'' and that report documented 
significant improvements in water quality and public health that was 
associated with America's investments in water and wastewater 
infrastructure.
  But it also documented unprecedented financial problems. Over the 
next 20 years, America's water and wastewater systems will have to 
invest $23 billion a year more than current investments to meet the 
national environmental and public health priorities in the Clean Water 
Act and Safe Drinking Water Act to replace aging and failing 
infrastructure.
  The epidemic isn't isolated. Eroded infrastructure is prominent in 
every neighborhood across this country; and nationwide, wastewater 
infrastructure needs range from $300 billion to $400 billion over the 
next 20 years. My home State of Maryland has self-reported that it has 
an $8.4 billion deficit in water infrastructure needs.
  Just last month, out in my district on a cold winter morning, not far 
from Capitol Hill, a 54-inch water main broke that created massive 
destruction, overturned cars, destroyed businesses, and left residents 
like me without safe drinking water for days. It stopped the traffic 
along the Nation's beltway. The trucks that travel up and down the 
eastern seaboard were stopped, stopping commerce along the way. This 
happens all across the country. We've had at least 278 water main 
breaks just since January 1 in the counties that I represent.
  I would note that under the continuing resolution, States like 
Maryland would lose $33 million in funding, 937 jobs in States like 
Idaho, for example. In that State alone, there would be a loss of $6.9 
million and 192 jobs, and this at a time when we need to do real job 
creation.
  Overall, the continuing resolution would see a loss of about at least 
$1.4 billion in funds from wastewater and water treatment, to the tune 
of 39,253 jobs at a time when the economy is really staggering.
  So I would strongly urge consideration of this amendment; and whether 
or not it's done in this continuing resolution, the fact is that our 
water infrastructure is failing. It's failing all across the country. 
We have needs that are unmet. Local communities cannot meet those 
needs, and it's really incumbent upon us to improve the Nation's water 
infrastructure so that we improve our competitiveness and we ensure 
that we have clean drinking water.
  I would not like any other community across the country to have to do 
what I've done three times just during this last year, that is, boiling 
every single bit of water that I use because of our failing 
infrastructure. And this isn't just about my community in Maryland. 
It's about communities across the country.
  And I think if anything, in this continuing resolution we need to be 
thinking about economic development and job creation. And the 
resolution in front of us does exactly the opposite. It takes millions 
of dollars away from communities for wastewater and water 
infrastructure and ensures that we won't be competitive over this next 
century. So I would urge strong consideration of the resolution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I continue to reserve my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho continues to reserve a 
point of order.
  Mr. MORAN. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page 2137]]


  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to be on the record strongly agreeing 
with the concept of the gentlewoman's amendment, to add $200 million to 
State and local grants.
  Our congressional districts are on either side of the Potomac River. 
We can also see the Blue Plains sewage treatment plant from Maryland 
and Virginia.
  Now, we've made strides thanks to Federal funding in cleaning up the 
Potomac River, which all of us can see, and most of us cross every day; 
but much work still lies ahead.
  This bill's cuts to State and local infrastructure grants will 
undermine the progress that we have made on this river and will cripple 
hundreds of State and local government efforts throughout the country.
  The Republican bill slashes the clean water and safe drinking water 
State revolving funds by $2 billion, or 56 percent, reducing the number 
of wastewater and drinking water projects by about 750 nationwide.

                              {time}  1810

  The needs of our Nation's aging water infrastructure exceed $660 
billion. This would also be a missed opportunity to add thousands of 
engineering, construction, and other support service jobs if we cut 
these programs. Additionally, the bill includes an undesignated $300 
million rescission to EPA already that will most likely also impact 
these revolving funds.
  So the gentlewoman's amendment does have great merit. Albeit 
technically it may be out of order, it should be offered because it 
addresses a very important problem with this continuing resolution. It 
should be accepted.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             point of order

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I must insist on my point of order.
  The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. 
The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule 
XXI because the amendment proposes to increase a rescission to offset 
an increase in an appropriation. And I would ask for a ruling from the 
Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an 
amendment must propose only to transfer appropriations among objects in 
the bill. Because the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Maryland proposes also another kind of change in the bill, namely, to 
increase the amount of a rescission, it may not avail itself of clause 
2(f) to address portions of the bill not yet read.
  Therefore, the point of order is sustained and the amendment is out 
of order.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Simpson) would be willing to engage in a colloquy with me 
concerning the climate change provision in the bill.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I would be happy to.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I want to ask the gentleman, first of all, if he could 
explain section 1746 of the bill to me.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I would be happy to.
  Section 1746 hits the pause button on the EPA's efforts to regulate 
greenhouse gas emissions because of what I think are unfounded fears 
about global climate change.
  As the chairman knows, and as the gentleman from Kentucky knows, over 
the last 2 years, EPA Administrator Jackson has been very busy creating 
an enormous body of regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. These 
regulations will cost jobs, drive up energy costs, and further imperil 
the American economy.
  EPA's greenhouse gas regulations need to be stopped in their tracks, 
and that's what section 1746 does. It provides a time-out for the 
balance of this fiscal year, during which time EPA will be prohibited 
from acting on them or enforcing them.
  Section 1746 is intended to put a halt to the regulations that we 
feel will harm this economy. It is not intended to affect permitting or 
other matters unrelated to greenhouse gas emissions such as 
construction starts or permit approvals.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I thank the gentleman, and I do agree with you 
wholeheartedly.
  I might add that Congress and the U.S. Senate have specifically 
addressed this issue on three separate occasions, and on every one of 
those three occasions have said ``no'' to EPA regulation.
  I might also add that last week we had a hearing with Administrator 
Jackson, and Mr. Green, our colleague from Texas on the Democratic 
side, asked her a question. He said: My question is this. What happens 
if only the United States acts to reduce these emissions while major 
emitters like China or India do not take action, do not follow suit? 
Can we really address climate change without strong mandatory 
reductions by other major emitters around the world?
  And Ms. Jackson, the Administrator of the EPA, said: We will not 
ultimately be able to change the amount of CO2 that is 
accumulating in the atmosphere alone.
  So I would say, Mr. Chairman, that EPA's regulations will lead to 
higher costs for the coal industry, the oil industry, and natural gas 
industries that comprise 85 percent of America's energy mix, burdening 
both individuals and businesses and, most important of all, destroying 
jobs.
  So let me ask the gentleman. Is this a debate about global warming 
science?
  Mr. SIMPSON. No. It's not even necessary to be a climate change 
skeptic to be an EPA greenhouse gas regulations skeptic. These 
regulations are all economic pain for little, if any, environmental 
gain.
  EPA can only regulate American companies, and we know that China 
already emits more carbon dioxide than we do. Its rate of emissions 
growth is many times faster than ours, and the Chinese Government has 
repeatedly made clear that they will never impose such job-destroying 
regulatory measures on themselves. Even Administrator Lisa Jackson, as 
you said, has concluded that unilateral action would have little or 
negligible impact on further temperatures.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I thank the gentleman.
  I do want to mention that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has 
released a discussion draft on exactly this same issue, called the 
Energy Tax Prevention Act, that would block EPA's global warming agenda 
under the Clean Air Act.
  The bill does not weaken the Clean Air Act, however. It would have no 
effect on the agency's ongoing efforts to deal with smog, soot, lead, 
mercury, and all the other pollutants that have been addressed under 
the Clean Air Act. It is simply a bill to stop the agency and 
bureaucrats from issuing regulations absent congressional approval.
  As our former chairman John Dingell said, avoiding the glorious mess 
is what we would be doing, because the Clean Air Act was never designed 
to regulate greenhouse gases.
  As it is, EPA's global warming regulatory agenda, which is just 
beginning to roll out, is so open-ended that it is already having a 
chilling effect on investment and job creation. The longer it moves 
forward, the more domestic manufacturing jobs will be forced overseas 
to countries not similarly burdened.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. SIMPSON. When do you expect Congress to act on the Energy Tax 
Prevention Act?
  Mr. WHITFIELD. We have already had our first hearing, which was on 
February 9. We have heard from a wide range of industries about the job 
creation issue, and I expect that we will be moving this legislation 
within the next month and a half.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page 2138]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognuized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, in light of the last colloquy, I find it 
necessary to make a few points about this underlying bill.
  It contains language that stops EPA from limiting greenhouse gas 
emissions for the term of the continuing resolution in other words, 
through the end of fiscal year 2011.
  First, let me point out that this issue should not be included in an 
appropriations bill that has received zero days in the Appropriations 
Committee for debate. I do understand that the Energy and Commerce 
authorizers are working this issue through a regular order process, but 
this is anything but regular order. Not that we would necessarily agree 
on the language that they are working on. But the reason you don't deal 
with complicated policy issues in eight lines of bill text is because 
often the only thing you achieve is unintended bad consequences. In 
this instance, I believe that is exactly what has happened.
  EPA has a new permitting program that is currently in place as of 
January. It is to be implemented by both the States and EPA. There 
would be serious implications from this CR language, since new and 
modified large facilities are now required by law to obtain greenhouse 
gas permits before construction, but this bill's language would prevent 
Federal and State permitting authorities to take action to issue the 
permits. This would subject large facilities to legal challenges from 
citizens for failing to obtain permits and will lead to construction 
delays effectively eliminating thousands of American jobs. This is 
going to be held up in the courts indefinitely because of this 
language.
  We have heard the arguments that these regulations will stop power 
plants and refineries and other big industry from creating jobs, but 
EPA's regulations encourage companies to make major new investments and 
to find cleaner ways to do business. This language is an actual assault 
on jobs.
  The chair of the Republican Energy and Commerce Committee stated last 
week at a hearing, I bring this up since in the last colloquy the 
Chinese Government was mentioned, and I quote the Republican Chairman, 
``The Chinese Government and other competitors have no intention of 
burdening and raising the cost of doing business for their 
manufacturers and energy producers the way EPA plans to do here in 
America.''

                              {time}  1820

  Now, Mr. Chairman, to suggest that we should be taking our cues on 
public health and environmental policies from China, the People's 
Republic of China, exposes a majority party that is clearly on the side 
of industry, but not of their constituents, let alone being on the 
right side of history.
  This language is not about deficit reduction. It is a free pass to 
allow certain industries to pollute at whatever damage to the public 
health, they choose. We know that pollution is dangerous to the public 
health, we know that EPA has a legislative responsibility to limit that 
pollution, and yet this language would gut EPA's legal responsibility 
to carry out that legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your 
attentiveness to this process. I know it is laborious.
  I want to draw attention, I want to go back just a few steps here 
when we were listening to an amendment brought to us by my good friend 
from New York (Mr. Reed).
  As we are going through this process, there are those who have been 
working extremely hard, the Appropriations Committee and Members all 
across this House, and Mr. Reed dug very deep and he found something I 
think all of us wanted to see, something that was exposed, that the 
American people pointed out clearly, that the Federal Government has 
been spending money where it does not need to be spending money.
  Think about where we are as a nation: $14 trillion in debt; 
unemployment unacceptable; GDP dropping; $1.5 trillion of deficit, 
which is almost 150 percent of what the Federal Government takes in. 
Think about where we are. And then children, upon conception, you ask 
any economist, they will vary somewhere between $42,000 and $47,000 of 
debt inherited upon conception.
  Yet Mr. Reed, he points out here today a great find: That this 
government is funding a Tijuana sewer rehabilitation project. There is 
something about that that just stinks. And I would hope that this 
House, that Americans all across this country, that Members of this 
House would see that just $10 million is being funded for a 
rehabilitation project of a sewer facility in Mexico, yet we are in 
this position of this fiscal house being out of order and in disorder.
  I would hope that this House would see and recognize that this simple 
amendment, only $10 million, a small amount compared to that $1.5 
trillion deficit, is worthy of a ``yes'' vote of amending this out of 
this CR, and we would send a message to the American people: It doesn't 
matter if it is $1, $10 million, $1 billion, if it is unnecessary 
funding coming from this government, we are going to get it out and get 
this fiscal house back in order.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1743.  The matter pertaining to competitive grants to 
     communities to develop plans and demonstrate and implement 
     projects which reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the second 
     proviso under the heading ``Environmental Protection Agency, 
     State and Tribal Assistance Grants'' in division A of Public 
     Law 111-88 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this 
     division.
       Sec. 1744.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the amounts 
     authorized to transfer under the heading ``Environmental 
     Protection Agency, Administrative Provisions, Environmental 
     Protection Agency'' in division A of Public Law 111-88 shall 
     be applied to funds appropriated by this division by 
     substituting ``$225,000,000'' for ``$475,000,000''.
       Sec. 1745.  Of the unobligated balances available for 
     ``Environmental Protection Agency'' $300,000,000 is 
     rescinded: Provided, That the Administrator shall submit to 
     the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a proposed 
     allocation of amounts by account and program project to 
     rescind 30 days prior to the rescission: Provided further, 
     That no amounts may be rescinded from amounts that were 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to a concurrent resolution on the budget or the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
       Sec. 1746.  None of the funds made available to the 
     Environmental Protection Agency by this division or any other 
     Act may be expended for purposes of enforcing or promulgating 
     any regulation (other than with respect to section 202 of the 
     Clean Air Act) or order, taking action relating to, or 
     denying approval of state implementation plans or permits 
     because of the emissions of greenhouse gases due to concerns 
     regarding possible climate change.


            Amendment No. 521 Offered by Mr. Braley of Iowa

  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 276, line 11, after ``climate change'' insert ``: 
     Provided, That nothing in this section shall prohibit the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from 
     implementing or enforcing section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act 
     (relating to the renewable fuel program)''.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho reserves a point of order.
  The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, all day we have been hearing a lot 
of talk about job-killing regulations, but, Mr. Chairman, section 1746 
is a job-killing statute that would block implementation of the 
Renewable Fuel Standard that was established just 4 years ago. The 
Braley amendment would allow the Renewable Fuel Standard to move 
forward and allow this burgeoning industry, which is reducing

[[Page 2139]]

our dependence on foreign oil and creating thousands of jobs all over 
the country, to move forward.
  The continuing resolution prevents the Renewable Fuel Standard from 
promoting clean, renewable home-grown fuel that reduces our dependence 
on foreign oil.
  Prior to the RFS, my State of Iowa produced less than 1 billion 
gallons of ethanol annually, and in large part because of its 
implementation, we now produce more than 4.5 billion gallons per year. 
Ethanol and biodiesel support nearly 49,000 jobs throughout the Iowa 
economy. This accounts for nearly $550 million in State tax revenue. 
Without the Renewable Fuel Standard, we would take a huge step 
backwards, potentially having a devastating impact on rural economies 
across the country in every congressional district.
  The RFS promotes biofuels by ensuring that transportation fuel sold 
in the United States contains certain volumes of renewable fuels, 
including advanced biofuels, cellulosic biofuels, and biomass-based 
diesel. That includes advanced biofuels, including ethanol from waste 
material, from crop residue, vegetative waste, animal waste, food 
waste, yard waste, biomass-based diesel, bio-gas, and butanol.
  The RFS promotes biofuels and is supported by the American Coalition 
For Ethanol, Growth Energy, the National Corn Growers Association, and 
the Renewable Fuels Association, and this particular legislation was 
described by the American Advanced Ethanol Council as language that 
would defund efforts to implement the RFS.
  The required volume of each type of fuel is established annually by 
the EPA, and this summer EPA needs to propose the volume requirements 
for calendar year 2012. But the Republican provision in this section 
would prevent EPA from doing so. If EPA can't set the volume 
requirement, then RFS won't function next year, and renewable fuel 
producers all across country are counting on these requirements.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, in your area, there are two plants, White 
Plains Energy in Plainview and Hereford Renewable Energy and White 
Energy in Hereford that will be affected if this provision becomes law.
  In fact, the gentleman from Idaho has Pacific Ethanol in Burley, a 50 
million gallon producer, and Idaho Sustainable Energy, which is on the 
front edge of biofuels with algal biodiesel, in Glenns Ferry, Idaho, 
which will be impacted if this provision becomes law.
  So instead of investing in certainty that allows these producers to 
move forward, this provision would pull the rug from farmers and 
refiners all across the country. That is why I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this flawed funding language and support my amendment to ensure 
the Renewable Fuel Standard is allowed to move forward. It is a bad 
policy to have job-killing statutory provisions that are going to 
increase our dependence on foreign oil and move us backward, not 
forward, in the important area of bioenergy.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from Idaho continue to reserve 
his point of order?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LATHAM. I thank the chairman, and I appreciate the gentleman's 
concern on section 1746 of the continuing resolution that some people 
think would negatively impact renewable fuel standards. That rider in 
the bill specifically prohibits the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas 
emissions from stationary sources. However, reports that this provision 
will also block EPA from setting standards for the 2012 Renewable Fuel 
Standard are totally unfounded. The Energy and Commerce Committee 
confirms this and everyone else. The gentleman, I know, used to be a 
member of that committee.
  I think it is really important to clarify that the rider in the CR is 
narrowly focused on EPA's new stationary source permitting authority 
and does not affect EPA's renewable fuels program.
  Under the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, which was 
referred to, Congress expressly stated that the Renewable Fuel Standard 
does not, and I say not, constitute regulation of greenhouse gases 
under the Clean Air Act. The fundamental purpose of the Renewable Fuel 
Standard is to ensure our Nation's energy security and to reduce our 
dependence on foreign sources of oil while providing a valuable 
incentive for the production of agriculture.

                              {time}  1830

  As an Iowan, I understand the vast importance of agriculture to our 
economy by creating thousands of good-paying jobs and contributing 
numerous economic benefits to our rural communities. I understand 
concerns that may have been expressed. However, it is very clear that 
the renewable fuel standard falls outside EPA's rulemaking authority 
addressing climate change. I want to assure my colleagues and the 
people of Iowa that this legislation will not affect the renewable fuel 
standard or bring an end to the program, as some have erroneously 
suggested.
  Mr. Chairman, rules have already been written. Anything in this bill 
is prospective. We already have the standard in place, and this does 
not affect that anyway. In the Senate, Senator Rockefeller, a Democrat 
over there--and I hate to see this be politicized because it should not 
be a political issue--but the Democrat Senator from West Virginia has 
this identical language and nobody has said anything about that. He 
wants to have a prohibition for 2 years. The Energy and Commerce 
Committee is having debates as to making permanent as far as the 
prohibition. And I have not heard any concerns about that.
  So it is, I think, very unfortunate that some information is being 
put forth on the floor of the House here that is not true. The Energy 
and Commerce Committee has said over and over again that this does not 
affect renewable fuel standards. It will have no impact as far as 
ethanol is concerned.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The problem with the language as drafted, Mr. Chairman, is that it is 
so broad and poorly drafted that it does threaten the renewable fuel 
standard, which is why all of those renewable energy advocate groups 
that I mentioned in my remarks are in support of the amendment that I 
have offered. The RFS promotes biofuels by ensuring that transportation 
fuels sold in the United States contain the requisite number of volume 
for each type of fuel that's established annually.
  This summer, the EPA has to make sure that those standards are 
identified for each one of the various categories; but if they don't 
have the required guidance available to them because of the confusing 
language that's currently in this provision, it's going to create 
confusion and those same industries that waited and waited and waited 
for the tax extenders package to be passed at the end of the last 
Congress are going to have the same type of uncertainty governing their 
investment decisions moving forward, which is why those groups that I 
mentioned earlier are so concerned about this matter and are in support 
of the Braley amendment.
  They are Growth Energy, the National Corn Growers Association, the 
American Coalition for Ethanol, the Renewable Fuels Association, and 
the Advanced Ethanol Council. If the Advanced Ethanol Council believes 
that this language is so vague that it would de-fund efforts to 
implement the RFS, that's not me speaking. That's the very groups that 
would be subject of regulation by the EPA, and that's why this 
amendment is important to clarify that that is not within the scope of 
EPA's powers.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 2140]]


  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman from Idaho.
  If there are people concerned about this, why didn't they come to us 
and talk to us before? We talked about the different groups out there, 
and that's because they've been given bad information that's not true. 
It is clear from the 2007 bill--and if someone would read it around 
here, they would understand that the renewable fuel standard is not 
affected by this. It is specifically outside the jurisdiction of what 
we're talking about, and so to make any assertion otherwise is simply 
giving erroneous information purposely on the floor. And that's very, 
very unfortunate because you do have people that are being told 
something that is not true, and now they're getting all worked up about 
it. I think it's very, very unfortunate.
  We had a meeting this last week with the Iowa delegation talking to 
each other. If you have concerns, why don't you bring it forth so we 
can take care of the problem? If you want to have the amendment, I 
would have supported it, but it's not needed. It is absolutely 
fictitious, this idea that this is somehow going to affect the 
renewable fuel standard. I think it's very unfortunate that this issue 
has become something that has been dreamt up for other reasons, I 
think. That's very, very unfortunate because we should need to work 
together for energy independence in this country and to lessen our 
dependence on foreign sources of energy.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of 
rule XXI. The rules states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a 
general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing 
law.'' The amendment gives direction in effect.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that section 1746 of the bill contains a legislative 
limitation on the use of funds. Such a provision may be properly 
amended by a non-legislative exception or by a germane, merely 
perfecting change.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa, rather than merely 
excepting section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act from the terms of the 
limitation, seeks to impart direction to the EPA Administrator with 
regard to the application of that section of the Clean Air Act.
  The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in the Congressional Record 
on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 193 by Mrs. Lummis of Wyoming.
  Amendment No. 338 by Mr. Moran of Virginia.
  Amendment No. 376 by Mr. Flake of Arizona.
  Amendment No. 84 by Mr. Pompeo of Kansas.
  Amendment No. 379 by Mr. Reed of New York.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 193 Offered by Mrs. Lummis

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Wyoming 
(Mrs. Lummis) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213, 
noes 216, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 61]

                               AYES--213

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harman
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rivera
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--216

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rooney
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)

[[Page 2141]]


     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Alexander
     Clay
     Giffords
     McCarthy (NY)

                              {time}  1902

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, and Mr. BOREN changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. COLE, MEEHAN, BONNER, LANDRY, and McKEON changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 338 Offered by Mr. Moran

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Moran) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 73, 
noes 352, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 62]

                                AYES--73

     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Bishop (GA)
     Boustany
     Braley (IA)
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Clay
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Davis (CA)
     DeGette
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Ellison
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fortenberry
     Gerlach
     Griffith (VA)
     Harman
     Heinrich
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Landry
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Marchant
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McIntyre
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Moran
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Pitts
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rigell
     Rothman (NJ)
     Ruppersberger
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Scott (VA)
     Shuler
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wittman
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--352

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Filner
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Runyan
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wu
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Amash
     Paul
       

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Giffords
     Lummis
     Lynch
     McCarthy (NY)
     Sullivan
     Waters

                              {time}  1906

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 376 Offered by Mr. Flake

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Flake) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199, 
noes 230, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 63]

                               AYES--199

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm

[[Page 2142]]


     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--230

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hultgren
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nunnelee
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rivera
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Crenshaw
     Giffords
     McCarthy (NY)
     Sullivan

                              {time}  1911

  Messrs. COHEN and RAHALL changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 84 Offered by Mr. Pompeo

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Pompeo) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239, 
noes 185, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 64]

                               AYES--239

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--185

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney

[[Page 2143]]


     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bachus
     Capps
     Carney
     Fattah
     Franks (AZ)
     Giffords
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller (NC)
     Smith (NE)

                              {time}  1914

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 379 Offered by Mr. Reed

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Reed) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228, 
noes 203, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 65]

                               AYES--228

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burton (IN)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--203

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Canseco
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flores
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Landry
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Giffords
     McCarthy (NY)

                              {time}  1919

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. INSLEE. I rise to ask, what happened to the party of Teddy 
Roosevelt? What happened to the party that helped us adopt, under 
Richard Nixon's leadership, the Clean Air Act? What happened to the 
Republican Party that used to be allied in the adoption of the clean 
air rules that have so helped the health of Americans? What happened to 
the party that adopted the Clean Air Act 40 years ago which has helped 
save over 200,000 lives? And I ask why today, in this continuing 
resolution, the Republican Party has abandoned any pretext whatsoever 
to stand for clean air when they eviscerate the clean air law in their 
continuing resolution.
  This is a sad statement to think that a party that at one time helped 
us clean up the air, reducing cancer deaths and reducing respiratory 
illness and reducing heart attacks, has seen fit to go and leave with 
the polluting industries to gut the Clean Air Act.
  I want to make it clear so people know what the Republican continuing 
resolution does. Even though the Clean Air Act today requires the 
Environmental Protection Agency to clean up our air against dangerous 
gases like carbon dioxide and ozone, even though the Supreme Court has 
ruled that Americans are entitled to this protection, the Republican 
Party has decided to make it illegal for the cops on the beat to do 
their job.
  This bill, amazingly enough, the Republicans have passed a provision, 
or want to in this bill, that would make it

[[Page 2144]]

illegal for the Environmental Protection Agency to protect the 
environment. Now, why would you want to make it illegal for the 
Environmental Protection Agency to protect the environment?
  And I want to make clear how radical this action is. There is no 
fiscal reason for this. This is just an assault on clean air. The 
``dirty air act'' is not going to revise any proposed rules of the 
Environmental Protection Agency. It isn't going to modify any clean air 
laws. It's going to eliminate them by saying that it is illegal for the 
EPA to enforce these clean air laws.
  And the sad thing about this, Mr. Chairman, this is an assault on 
science. You read the specific scientific conclusions of the thousands 
of scientists who have reviewed this, and here is what the scientists 
and the physicians say. Mr. Chairman, not the politicians, the 
physicians. Here is what they say: Greenhouse gases are the primary 
driver of climate change, which can lead to hotter, longer heat waves 
that threaten the health of the sick, poor, or elderly, increases in 
ground level ozone pollution linked to asthma and other respiratory 
illnesses, as well as other threats to the health and welfare of 
America.
  Now, why would the Republican Party want to make the air more 
dangerous for our kids who are using those inhalers to try to prevent 
asthma attacks?
  In our Commerce Committee hearing, we had a young woman from North 
Carolina, and she talked about the fact that increasing ozone increases 
and aggravates her asthma. What reason on this green earth do we have 
to increase the rates of asthma of our kids? And that's what the 
Republican Party wants to do in this continuing resolution.
  Now, that's kind of a harsh statement. It's a harsh statement to say 
that one of our noble parties wants to increase the availability of 
ozone to damage our kids' health. But facts are stubborn things, and 
this is what the Republican Party is sentencing our kids to, which is 
more dangerous air. And it's a real sad statement when you consider the 
past history of the Republican Party which helped, under Richard Nixon 
and Teddy Roosevelt, to adopt these environmental laws.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that at some point we will get a little more 
bipartisanship here for clean air, we will abandon this commitment to 
the polluting industries that are running this effort, and reject this 
continuing resolution and these anti-clean air laws.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Chairman, today we are debating amendments on a 
continuing resolution because the leadership of the 111th Congress 
failed to do one of their most basic jobs last year: Pass a budget to 
fund the Federal Government.
  Left without a budget to work with and our financial house in 
shambles, it is clear that we are in a state of financial crisis. Our 
debt requires immediate action, and the CR is just the beginning.
  I came to Congress because, like many other new Republican Members of 
the freshman class, I run a small business, sticking to my budget and 
trying to make plans for the future. All the while I was watching 
Washington politicians drive this country's economy into a ditch. I 
knew that something had to change.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle are trying all the same 
worn-out tricks. But I am here to say to the American people, this is 
not about tricks or politics. This is about preserving the greatness of 
America.
  No one in this Chamber finds joy in the tough decisions we have to 
make, but we can no longer ignore them. The American people have 
elected this Congress to be good stewards of their money.
  Today is not a happy day. This is not a happy speech.
  Government spending and burdensome regulations have driven the 
American people to anger and frustration with good reason. Sadly, our 
Nation stands on the edge of bankruptcy. Our love for future 
generations of Americans requires that we not ignore today's problem 
only to find them, years from now, in irreparable financial ruin.
  Regardless of the program, today's deficit spending is tomorrow's tax 
increase. In my neighborhood, there have been three babies born 
recently. Each of those babies now owe $45,000 in Federal debt.

                              {time}  1930

  We are fighting for our very survival. At risk are the freedoms 
representative of a free market economy and free society; the freedom 
to choose, freedom of private industry to compete, freedom from 
burdensome taxation, and freedom from mandated government programs. 
Washington today is slowly smothering the personal liberty Americans so 
greatly esteem.
  As the 112th Congress struggles to pass legislation that meets our 
Nation's current challenges, fundamental disagreement remains. 
Unfortunately for the American people, the debate is being framed by my 
colleagues on the other side as ``vicious cuts to vital programs by 
Republicans who simply don't care.'' Hear me now when I say this has 
never been farther from the truth.
  Today we come to terms with the fact that we cannot spend money on 
everything we want, regardless of the good intentions. For years 
politicians have ignored these problems. Not this Congress. Not this 
Congresswoman. The people elected us to end the talks and take swift 
action, and we must.
  As a small business owner, when finances get tight, we cut where 
necessary. Raising prices isn't always the option. As painful as it may 
be, you make tough decisions to cut waste, operations, production 
costs, and eventually jobs as a last resort. Why should the Federal 
Government be any different?
  Today's debt crisis is a very real threat to our liberty. Liberty 
allows people to work hard and achieve what they want, be responsible 
for their own actions and be free. No one shackled by debt is free.
  Today's budget crisis is dangerous and threatens our basic freedom. 
Free societies value every citizen equally, placing no preference one 
over another. I believe that no one should be entitled to another's 
hard-earned provisions, and that government should support its 
citizens, not burden them with insurmountable debt and obligations they 
cannot fulfill. Government spending is not the answer to our looming 
problem.
  I know there will be those who argue that my rhetoric is too harsh 
and that the financial crisis is not as bad as it seems. This crisis is 
real; and without immediate action, America will continue spiraling 
toward financial disaster.
  Today, I challenge my colleagues to let real leadership begin. No 
longer should we turn to China to finance that which we cannot afford. 
Let us have the courage to right our wrongs, the strength to see it 
through, and the vision to lead with the powers entrusted to us from 
the consent of the governed, rather than selfish ambition.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this 
bill and the priorities and the values it represents.
  Republicans repeat like robots the same talking points we have heard 
again and again tonight, that to get our debt under control, middle 
class families are going to have to suck it up. We face tough choices, 
harsh choices; but really there is no choice. We are going to have to 
cut public education drastically, along with Head Start for the 
children who otherwise would start kindergarten too far behind to ever 
catch up; job training for workers who have lost their jobs; Pell 
Grants so middle class kids can afford a college education; research at 
the National Science Foundation and Department of Energy, and on and 
on.

[[Page 2145]]

  Mr. Chairman, we do have choices. We have this deficit because of 
choices we have made. Just a decade ago, the debate here was what to do 
with the surplus. Alan Greenspan, who was then the chairman of the 
Federal Reserve Board, worried that it might unsettle the economy if we 
paid off the national debt too quickly. President Clinton urged that we 
use the surplus to shore up Social Security and Medicare so that my 
generation could live in dignity when we retire.
  A Republican President and a Republican Congress decided instead to 
cut taxes sharply for the richest of the rich. The deficit we face now 
is because of that choice, and we saw just 2 months ago that protecting 
those tax cuts for the richest of the rich, even Americans making more 
than $1 million a year, was their first priority. So despite all of the 
weeping and wailing, the gnashing of teeth, the rending of garments 
about the deficit now, just 2 months ago they said not a word about the 
deficit when they were voting to cut taxes, to explode the deficit by 
cutting taxes on the very richest Americans.
  So now Congress is voting to kick 200,000 kids out of Head Start so 
that Americans who worked and strived to be conceived to the right 
parents will pay little in inheritance taxes.
  Now Congress is voting to fire 17,000 teachers and special educators 
so Americans making more than $1 million a year will not have to pay 
the income taxes that they paid in the nineties, which was hardly a 
confiscatory rate.
  And much of the bill obviously has nothing to do with saving money or 
whether the government is too big or too small. It is about whose side 
the government is on. This bill cuts drastically the funding needed to 
protect middle class families from the gouging that has lurked in the 
legalese, the fine print of financial contracts, the tricks and the 
traps written by banks' lawyers. That cut has nothing to do with saving 
money. It is all about putting government on the side of financial 
predators, not on the side of hardworking honest Americans trying to 
make an honest living.
  We have seen clusters of rare cancers and birth defects that we know 
are the result of an environmental exposure to something, and this bill 
devastates environmental protection. Middle class children are facing 
life with lower IQs because of unchecked environmental exposure so 
polluters can have bigger profits and CEOs can reward themselves with 
bigger bonuses.
  Many of my colleagues have argued that this bill is penny wise and 
pound foolish, it is shortsighted and will hurt the economy. All of 
that is true. But I am most disturbed that this bill represents values 
that are incompatible with values that I learned at my mother's knee, 
the values of generations of Americans, the values of the faith 
traditions of most Americans, including me, the values that have been 
the glue that has held our country together in tough times. I will vote 
``no.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I am totally opposed to this resolution. I knew 
back in December when Congress cut taxes for millionaires and 
billionaires that in February we would be cutting services for the 
working poor, children, and the disabled.
  The House Republican CR in fact is very similar to the last December 
tax cut bill, which included billions of dollars in tax breaks for the 
wealthiest 2 percent of Americans, while driving up the budget deficit 
an extra $700 billion. The proposed continuing resolution will be what 
I usually call reverse Robin Hood: it will rob from the poor and 
working people to give tax breaks to the rich.
  In my area of specialization, transportation and infrastructure, this 
bill would rescind $2.5 billion for high-speed rail projects already 
awarded, as well as cancellation of 76 transportation projects in 40 
States, bringing about a loss of 25,000 new construction jobs. Pink 
slips.
  While the unemployment rate is still 9 percent in our Nation, it is 
critical to invest in infrastructure at this time. As I always said, 
Federal transportation and infrastructure funds are essential to job 
creation, and for every $1 billion invested in infrastructure projects, 
over 42,000 well-paid, permanent jobs are created and over $2 billion 
in economic development.
  This resolution also cuts programs to assist homeless vets. Over 
130,000 of our Nation's 24 million veterans are homeless on any given 
night. In this time of foreclosures and uncertainty in the housing 
market, it is inconceivable that we would limit the help available to 
those who serve and protect our country's freedom that we hold so dear. 
So we are going to give pink slips to over 130,000 veterans. I want to 
say that that will not happen--but pink slips to the veterans.
  In addition, over 200,000 children we are going to kick off of Head 
Start. A pink slip for the Head Start program. We are going to reduce 
the maximum Pell Grant $800 per student. It takes away over 20,000 
researchers supported at the National Science Foundation. And a program 
that is near and dear to my heart, over 1,300 cops will be taken off 
the beat. This program was started under President Clinton, where we 
put an additional 100,000 cops on the beat and cut down crime.

                              {time}  1940

  We cut another 2,400 firefighters. Pink slips for the firefighters. 
And we cut $2.5 billion to the National Institutes of Health. Budget 
decisions by Congress and the President should prioritize the most 
vulnerable communities who are struggling to make ends meet at this 
difficult economic time, not the wealthy and the powerful.
  Today's bill on the House floor does absolutely nothing to create 
jobs or improve our Nation's economy but is a direct assault on the 
most vulnerable by cutting the budget in every single area, from 
transportation to our Nation's veterans to our Nation's children to 
police on the beat protecting our citizens. Once again, the Republican 
Party is asking our seniors, our students, our children, and working 
families to make fiscal sacrifices while millionaires and billionaires 
and powerful special interest groups get to walk off without a scratch.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1747.  None of the funds made available by this 
     division or any other Act may be used by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency to implement, administer, or enforce a 
     change to a rule or guidance document pertaining to the 
     definition of waters under the jurisdiction of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
       Sec. 1748.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest and 
     Rangeland Research'' shall be $297,252,000: Provided, That 
     the amounts included under such heading in division A of 
     Public Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds appropriated by 
     this division by substituting ``$61,939,000'' for 
     ``$66,939,000''.


                 Amendment No. 85 Offered by Mr. Pompeo

  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 277, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $7,400,000)''.
       Page 359, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $7,400,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that will 
reduce spending for the International Forestry Program by $7.4 million. 
Some on the other side have said $7.4 million isn't very much money 
when we have a deficit of a little over $1.5 trillion. In Kansas, 
that's still a little bit of money.
  This program started out a long time ago to provide funds for saving 
the Brazilian rainforest. But like so many programs that had good 
intentions, it's morphed, it's morphed into something terribly 
different. Just this past year, this program funded field trips for 
students in Mexico to follow the migration of monarch butterflies. It 
funded research in China to protect the Panda habitat and make sure 
that we didn't have the infestation of forest pests in

[[Page 2146]]

China. I think the Chinese can fund themselves if someone thinks that's 
a worthy task. Last year, the International Forestry Program funded a 
study on the declining hummingbird populations in the western United 
States, Canada, and Mexico.
  Mr. Chairman, there are difficult decisions to make when the country 
is at this point in its economic life, but this is not difficult. These 
are precisely the kind of programs that Americans sent a new Congress 
to take care of to make sure that we're not doing things that make no 
sense for America. So I would urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to Ms. McCollum from Minnesota to 
explain why the Democrats on the subcommittee are very strongly opposed 
to this amendment.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to make it clear 
that while the Congressman says the amendment eliminates the U.S. 
Forest Service's International Programs, it does not. The amendment 
only calls for a reduction in the budget of the Department of 
Agriculture, Forest Service, State and private forests. Should this 
shortsighted amendment pass, the agency would decide what to cut within 
its budget. That being said, the gentleman from Kansas has unfairly 
maligned an important agency that's doing unsung work.
  The U.S. Forest Service's International Programs plays a unique role 
as one of the few Federal agencies working with international 
governments and NGOs to, one, stop the flow of illegal wood that is 
undercutting our U.S. timber industry and costing us jobs. Another 
example, protecting western Canada's boreal forests in partnership with 
Ducks Unlimited to ensure future generations of hunters will have 
access to waterfowl habitats. This area is the second most productive 
breeding ground for ducks that migrate to the United States.
  The examples of working with China and Russia are important, working 
with China and Russia to address such invasive species as the emerald 
ash borer and the Asian gypsy moth, both of which currently are 
threatening millions of forest acres in my home State of Minnesota and 
have devastated parts of the eastern part of the United States.
  Similarly, all wildlife salmon migrate from the rivers of the West 
Coast of North America to eastern Russia to the Pacific Ocean. The 
Forest Service is working with the Russians to improve the watershed 
management on these rivers in eastern Russia to preserve the wild stock 
of this important species for future generations.
  One of the things that disturbs me most is the way that a program has 
been described that allows students to interact with one another and 
learn about forestry management, biology, and how we are interconnected 
in this world. There are no Mexican students that go on field trips 
here in the United States, but there is an exchange of classrooms in 
Canada and the United States and in Mexico where teachers online follow 
the migration of the monarch. Students learn about, yes, insects. They 
learn about the trees that are important to them, and they learn 
biology.
  These are very, very important programs. They should not be maligned. 
And this amendment, while it does not eliminate the program, should 
still be opposed.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I would associate myself strongly with the 
remarks of the gentlelady from Minnesota, and strongly urge rejection 
of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The International Forestry Program has already been reduced by 25 
percent in this proposal. It's funded at $7.4 million in the CR. In 
FY10 it was funded at $9 million. The International Program brought in 
an additional $36 million in funds from State and USAID. The 
International Program brings in approximately $3 for every dollar 
invested. This program, regardless of the amount of money spent, is 
still a lot of money in Idaho, just as it is in Kansas.
  But this program is critical to protecting forestry and the forest 
products industry in the United States. It's the only forestry entity 
representing the U.S. at trade summits. International Forestry is the 
only program working directly to counter the flow of illegally 
harvested forest products abroad. These materials compete with legally 
and sustainably harvested U.S. forest products.
  The U.S. negotiators from the Department of State and the U.S. Trade 
Representatives rely on the International Program to provide technical 
input to effectively advocate for the domestic forest products 
industry. These agencies do not have this expertise.
  The International Program also prevents the introduction of invasive 
and nonnative pests that would cause millions of dollars of damage to 
U.S. forests and the U.S. economy. The International Program, though 
funded through funding from USAID, plays a critical role in protecting 
U.S. security interests in conflict-prone areas. Unrelated, illegal 
resource extraction many times leads to unrest and corruption abroad.
  So I would oppose this amendment, even though I understand that it's 
easy to go after international programs when we have such problems 
here. The fact is that they protect industry here in this country, in 
the U.S. forest products industry in this country, because, as I said, 
they're the only ones representing the U.S. forest products industry 
and forestry in general in international trade agreements.
  I would oppose this amendment and hope that my colleagues would also.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas will 
be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1750.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Forest 
     System'' shall be $1,525,339,000: Provided, That no less than 
     $10,000,000 in available, unobligated prior-year funds shall 
     be used in addition to amounts provided by this division.
       Sec. 1751.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Capital 
     Improvement and Maintenance'' shall be $495,409,000: 
     Provided, That the amounts included under such heading in 
     division A of Public Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds 
     appropriated by this division by substituting ``$50,371,000'' 
     for ``$90,000,000'': Provided further, That no less than 
     $10,000,000 in available, unobligated prior-year funds shall 
     be used in addition to amounts provided by this division.
       Sec. 1752.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Land 
     Acquisition'' shall be $9,100,000: Provided, That no less 
     than $3,400,000 in available, unobligated prior-year funds 
     shall be used in addition to amounts provided by this 
     division.
       Sec. 1753.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wildland Fire 
     Management'' shall be $1,978,737,000: Provided, That the 
     amounts included under such heading in division A of Public 
     Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this 
     division by substituting ``$200,000,000'' for 
     ``$75,000,000'': Provided further, That of the unobligated 
     balances available in the FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve 
     Fund for the Department of Agriculture created by section 
     502(b) of Public Law 111-88 (43 U.S.C. 1748a(b)), 
     $250,000,000 is rescinded.
       Sec. 1754.  The authority provided by section 337 of the 
     Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447; 118 Stat. 
     3102), as amended, shall remain in effect until September 30, 
     2011.
       Sec. 1755.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health 
     Service, Indian Health Services'' shall be $3,883,886,000: 
     Provided, That the amounts included under such heading in 
     division A of Public Law 111-

[[Page 2147]]

     88 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this division as 
     follows: by substituting ``$862,765,000'' for 
     ``$779,347,000''; by substituting ``$53,000,000'' for 
     ``$48,000,000''; and by substituting ``$444,332,000'' for 
     ``$398,490,000'': Provided further, That of the funds 
     included under this heading, $29,211,000 shall be for 
     staffing and operating costs of newly constructed facilities.
       Sec. 1756.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health 
     Service, Indian Health Facilities'' shall be $255,497,000: 
     Provided, That no less than $10,000,000 in available, 
     unobligated prior-year funds shall be used in addition to 
     amounts provided by this division.
       Sec. 1757.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Health and Human Services, National 
     Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental 
     Health Sciences'' shall be $77,546,000.
       Sec. 1758.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic 
     Substances and Disease Registry, Toxic Substances and 
     Environmental Public Health'' shall be $74,039,000.
       Sec. 1759.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental 
     Quality and Office of Environmental Quality'' shall be 
     $2,848,000.
       Sec. 1760.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, Salaries 
     and Expenses'' shall be $10,799,000: Provided, That the 
     matter pertaining to methyl isocyanate in the last proviso 
     under such heading in division A of Public Law 111-88 shall 
     not apply to funds appropriated by this division.
       Sec. 1761.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Smithsonian Institution, Salaries and Expenses'' shall be 
     $634,661,000: Provided, That no less than $200,000 in 
     available, unobligated prior-year funds shall be used in 
     addition to amounts provided by this division.
       Sec. 1762.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Smithsonian Institution, Facilities Capital'' shall be 
     $123,600,000: Provided, That no less than $1,400,000 in 
     available, unobligated prior-year funds shall be used in 
     addition to amounts provided by this division.
       Sec. 1763.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Smithsonian Institution, Legacy Fund'' shall be $0.
       Sec. 1764.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``National Gallery of Art, Repair, Restoration and Renovation 
     of Buildings'' shall be $48,221,000: Provided, That the 
     amounts included under such heading in division A of Public 
     Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this 
     division by substituting ``$42,250,000'' for ``$40,000,000''.
       Sec. 1765.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Operations 
     and Maintenance'' shall be $22,500,000: Provided, That the 
     proviso under such heading in division A of Public Law 111-88 
     shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division.
       Sec. 1766.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Capital 
     Repair and Restoration'' shall be $13,920,000.
       Sec. 1767.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Salaries 
     and Expenses'' shall be $9,844,000.

                              {time}  1950

  Mr. SIMPSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 281, line 17 be 
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any 
point.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Idaho?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1768.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, 
     National Endowment for the Arts, Grants and Administration'' 
     shall be $145,000,000.


                Amendment No. 196 Offered by Mr. Walberg

  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 281, line 21, insert ``(reduced by $20,594,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.
       Page 359, line 13, insert ``(increased by $20,594,000)'' 
     before the period at the end.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, currently, the CR funds the National 
Endowment for the Arts at the approximate fiscal year 2008 level of 
$145 million. Amendment No. 196 takes the funding levels back to the 
fiscal year 2006 levels at $124.4 million. If accepted, this cut 
returns $20.6 million to the spending reduction account.
  Though some would call for the full defunding of the NEA, I'm not 
doing that. You see, I believe in the true fine arts, and of course 
that's defined by individual standards, I understand. I found that to 
be a fact for a number of years when I was a finance chair of a 
symphony orchestra. People will support what they appreciate.
  However, at a time when our government is in a position where it must 
cut Federal spending, I believe one of the main sources of the funding 
for the arts needs to be through philanthropy, but that only happens 
best in a sound and a growing economy. This budget crisis, this 
economy, continues to be frustrated by the spending of government, 
which frustrates individuals, who, indeed, would be willing to support 
and, in fact, still do support the arts as well.
  The National Endowment for the Arts does provide benefits to our 
country, and helps fund some true fine arts. However, we are asking 
them to only fund their true priorities, priorities approved by the 
majority of taxpaying citizens, of sponsors and of patrons of the arts. 
Limiting resources sometimes refocuses and defines that focus.
  We know that the public has had questions on some of the programs 
that the NEA has supported--major questions, major concerns. Attention 
to those concerns will gain the support of the taxpayer as well as of 
the philanthropist. Our country is in financial hardship, and we are 
not taking programs like the NEA off the table.
  I refer to a letter I received last night from a very strong patron 
of the arts, of the symphony for which I served as a finance chair. He 
is the chairman of a major manufacturing corporation in my district, 
who is writing about what they have just gone through as a business. I 
will just read excerpts:
  Until today, we have been operating under a forbearance agreement 
that began in 2008. It has been a struggle. Our leadership group 
accepted 15 to 50 percent cuts in salary, and our hourly staff accepted 
10 percent wage reductions. Our salesmen continue to find new 
opportunities. We reduced our spending tremendously and only spent for 
essentials. Our belt was very tight. We did all we could to help 
ourselves, and we all made many sacrifices. Above all, we never stopped 
believing in our future.
  That's the type of impact that happens in the private sector, even in 
programs we enjoy, benefit from and help out on, that we need to 
understand. Our country is in financial hardship, and we are not taking 
programs, even like the NEA, off the table.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. I rise in opposition to the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  The NEA has already been cut by $22 million in this continuing 
resolution. The NEA's contribution to deficit reduction is really 
infinitesimal, but its elimination would not be. It would be very 
costly.
  Mr. Chairman, the NEA represents less than 1/100th of discretionary 
spending. The economic dividend this Nation receives from the Endowment 
for the Arts, however, far exceeds the investment we make.
  It seems to me that, when there are too many issues that divide this 
Nation, and when there remains too much harshness and rancor, the arts 
have an even more important role to play because they remain a powerful 
medium through which we can all transcend our common differences, 
appreciate beauty, and empathize with all of humankind. This is what 
the arts are all about. This is what the NEA enables all Americans to 
more greatly appreciate. The NEA budget is small, but it is such an 
important catalyst in helping to create and sustain the arts.
  Last year, actor Jeff Daniels spoke at an Interior Appropriations 
subcommittee hearing as to how the NEA had supported the revival of a 
theater in his hometown in Michigan. It was a small grant, but in his 
case, it restored

[[Page 2148]]

the theater and its productions so that neighboring owners could then 
restore their homes and turn them into bed and breakfast places. 
Restaurants and antique shops saw boosts in their businesses. In fact, 
the State of Michigan just built an exit ramp off the State highway to 
serve the increasing numbers of cars that are flocking to his hometown, 
which otherwise would be a virtual ghost town.
  The NEA is a magnet for businesses in every place to which they 
locate, and it searches out those opportunities. There are 668,000 
businesses involved in the creation and distribution of art, and there 
are millions of jobs. I have two examples in Virginia. Actually, to 
save time, I'll just give one example:
  Signature Theatre in Shirlington, Arlington, Virginia, received NEA 
grants for its nationally recognized artistic and education programs.
  I would suggest that all of our Members go there some time. They will 
invariably see an extraordinary good performance, one that has 
generated economic activity throughout that community and one that 
could not have gotten on its feet without the help of the National 
Endowment for the Arts.
  When you cut that budget, you will see a dramatic adverse impact on 
the national arts community and on specifically the arts education 
programs that are developing throughout community centers and in our 
schools.

                              {time}  2000

  We do need to invest in the cultural lives of our citizenry and in 
our children's future. I can't help but fathom how a Nation as rich and 
prosperous as ours could not find it in its heart to provide $167 
million for the Endowment for the Arts.
  The arts and humanities will survive, but they will not be accessible 
for the large majority of our citizens who couldn't otherwise afford 
the expensive tickets that too often are charged at those performing 
arts places where frankly the financially elite are only able to afford 
to go. What the NEA does is to expand artistic achievement, to give 
people an opportunity to fully appreciate and for us to appreciate 
their talent.
  Denyce Graves, who grew up in Washington in the Anacostia area, said 
that The Kennedy Center could have been a world away. She never would 
have seen it had it not been for a National Endowment for the Arts 
grant. That enabled her to then pursue a career that ultimately 
resulted in one of the finest operatic performers in America, in the 
world.
  The chair of the National Endowment for the Arts, Rocco Landesman, a 
Broadway producer, extraordinarily effective, active leader, he has 
suggested reform, that we probably have too many arts venues. Let's 
consolidate them. Let's make sure that all of them are of the highest 
quality. It has started a discussion that needs to be done, but what 
shouldn't be done is to cut the National Endowment for the Arts even 
further than this continuing resolution does.
  I would urge rejection of the amendment, Madam Chair.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words and rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Capito). The gentleman from Washington is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. First of all, I have been on the committee for a long 
time, the Interior Appropriations Committee, and I can remember when 
Sid Yates from Chicago was the chairman, and we had arts funding at 
about $180 million, then we had new Republican leadership come in in 
1994 and 1995 and they cut the endowments in half. What we found out 
was that when the endowment had less money to give out in grants, the 
private sector started to give less money for grants and to help these 
institutions. I applaud the gentleman for being a leader in his local 
arts community.
  Americans for the Arts did a major study 4 or 5 years ago about the 
economic impact of the arts, and the gentleman from Virginia is 
absolutely correct; the arts have exploded across the country. We have 
given grants now in almost every single congressional district, which 
has helped the proliferation of arts institutions. Consolidation, it 
doesn't scare me. I think that, in some areas, it might be a good idea. 
I've seen in the Puget Sound area, in Seattle, and in Tacoma how much 
this has meant to the local communities, and this is a relatively small 
amount of money.
  When I was chairman of the committee, I did increase it, but I never 
increased it by an amount that the Republican ranking member could not 
also support. So Rocco Landesman said, well, why didn't you just put up 
the $250 million. We did this on a bipartisan basis. We also have an 
Arts Caucus in the Congress that operates on a bipartisan basis, and 
we've had on the floor over the years a multiple of votes, and we've 
had, you know, 40 or 50 enlightened Republicans who have joined with us 
and made a good majority in support of these programs.
  The humanities is also extremely important in literature and in 
education and helping our teachers. So I think these are worthy 
programs. I think the committee made the right decision here. I wish it 
was still at $167.5 million, but they've reduced it down to about $145 
million. I think that's good enough. I think going further than that 
will really do damage to both of these endowments that have been there 
since 1965 back in the Johnson administration, and I just think this 
would be a mistake.
  I support what the committee did, and I think we should stay with 
that number.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. MALONEY. I rise in opposition to this amendment and want to 
state that the arts not only contribute to education and enlightenment, 
they're important job creators. The NEA contributes to the development 
and economic growth of communities nationwide, and each year, the arts 
industry generates $166 billion in economic activity and provides 5.7 
million full-time jobs. In my district alone, nearly 120,000 people are 
employed in the museum, theater, art galleries, and other arts 
organizations that I'm proud to represent.
  So this is not the moment for trying to score political points in the 
name of fiscal responsibility, and we should not be proposing deep cuts 
that will take effect right away and destroy jobs in the arts and other 
places at the very time we're trying like mad to create them. This CR 
threatens our recovery just as the economy is bouncing back from the 
worst recession in decades, and it proves that my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle are tone deaf to the American people's number 
one priority, which is jobs.
  Earlier this week, President Obama laid out a budget that makes tough 
choices, a thoughtful budget that includes a 5-year freeze on non-
defense discretionary spending and reduces the deficit by $1.1 
trillion. It does all of this while making important investments in 
education, infrastructure, jobs, and our Nation's competitiveness, 
investments that will prepare us to compete now and in the future.
  As the President said at his press conference on Tuesday, when it 
comes to this budget, we need to use a scalpel, not a machete. The 
Republicans, by contrast, are making deep, painful, and seemingly 
arbitrary cuts, cuts that would result in more than 200,000 children 
being dropped from Head Start. Thousands of teachers would lose their 
jobs and be forced to leave the classroom. Some $2.5 billion in NIH 
cuts would jeopardize critical cancer and other disease research, and 
1,300 fewer cops would be on the beat as a result of eliminating the 
COPS hiring program, which we restored in a vote on this floor earlier 
tonight, thankfully. There will be 2,400 fewer firefighters through the 
elimination of SAFER grants, which again we fought to restore. Science 
and energy research, to help drive our clean energy economy, would be 
reduced, and the horrible list goes on and on, including this cut that 
is before us right now.

[[Page 2149]]

  Let's be clear: Cutting education, the arts, letting our 
infrastructure deteriorate further, and failing to harness the power of 
innovation is a recipe for declining competitiveness in an increasingly 
competitive global economy. It's imperative that we must invest in the 
future, invest in creating jobs, and this grant to the National 
Endowment for the Arts is an important investment that will pay 
dividends years down the road.
  I strongly support the program, and I'm opposed to the gentleman's 
proposal to cut it.
  Sure--it's harder to be strategic--but it's required.
  It's required that we recognize some investments make sense and some 
don't.
  We need to do more of what's working and eliminate what's not.
  The reality is that we have to keep growing the economy to bring down 
the deficit.
  And we have to bring down our long-term deficits to sustain that 
growth.
  But indiscriminate steep cuts--like the ones now being advocated by 
the Republicans--will jeopardize our recovery and make deficit 
reduction that much more difficult to achieve.
  This CR is bad for the recovery, bad for jobs and will hamper efforts 
to get out our long-term deficit under control.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WALBERG. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  2010

  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1769.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, 
     National Endowment for the Humanities, Grants and 
     Administration'' shall be $145,000,000: Provided, That the 
     amounts included under such heading in division A of Public 
     Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this 
     division by substituting ``$130,700,000'' for 
     ``$153,200,000''.
       Sec. 1770.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs'' shall be 
     $4,500,000.


                Amendment No. 249 Offered by Mr. Canseco

  Mr. CANSECO. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 282, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $4,500,000)''.
       Page 359, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $4,500,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CANSECO. Madam Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It would 
eliminate Federal funding for the National Capital Arts and Cultural 
Affairs grant program which the underlying continuing resolution funds 
at $4.5 million. This program provides noncompetitive grant funding for 
overhead costs to support artistic and cultural programs in the 
District of Columbia exclusively.
  In his budget last year and this year, President Obama has requested 
that this program's funding be cut by 50 percent, which the underlying 
legislation does. In this year's budget, President Obama notes that 
``in general, these institutions are also able to apply for Federal 
funding from other resources.''
  I'm not here to debate the merits of the program. I'm not here to 
question whether or not the money has been used by the institutions to 
accomplish good things. What I'm here to do today is to debate and 
question why this program should be considered a priority and receive 
taxpayer funding when we're in a fiscal crisis. Make no mistake, we are 
in a fiscal crisis that threatens not only our economic security but 
our national security.
  However, you don't have to take my word for it. Admiral Mike Mullen, 
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said, ``I think the biggest 
threat we have to our national security is our debt.'' Dr. Alice 
Rivlin, a former Office of Management and Budget Director under 
President Clinton and member of the President's Deficit Commission, 
said in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee last February, 
``On any reasonable set of economic assumptions, the U.S. budget is on 
an unsustainable track. There is no disagreement among the Office of 
Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, the Government 
Accountability Office, and leading private forecasters on where the 
budget is headed if we do not change course.'' And she continued, ``The 
growing deficit will be more and more difficult and expensive to 
finance. Ultimately, we will not be able to borrow enough to finance 
the widening gap between spending and revenues.''
  Even before the government's spending spree began that occurred under 
President Obama, then-Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid, 
our Nation was headed for a day of fiscal reckoning. They simply sped 
up the day our Nation will hurtle off the fiscal cliff, increasing non-
defense discretionary spending by 84 percent in just 2 years. Under 
their leadership, Federal spending has risen to levels as a share of 
our economy not seen since World War II and resulted in the Federal 
Government borrowing approximately 40 cents out of every dollar we 
spend. Where is all this headed if we don't stop our spending?
  If you followed the situation that occurred last year in Greece, you 
know that that nation had to make many painful choices very quickly 
because it had spent too much and investors were demanding higher 
interest rates to take on the risk associated with buying Greece's 
debt. If we don't get our fiscal house in order, what occurred in 
Greece is a preview of events to come to America. If we don't stop the 
spending and get our fiscal house in order, we will be the first 
generation of Americans to leave the next generation with a legacy of 
less freedom and prosperity. Do we want to leave our children and 
grandchildren a legacy of debt and limited opportunity?
  We have two choices: we can either stop the spending that is driving 
our fiscal crisis, or we can continue the spending and one day become 
the next Greece.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman. This amendment would entirely eliminate funding for a 
successful, proven program. The National Capital Arts grant program was 
established in 1986 to fill a substantial funding gap affecting the 
major private arts groups in the District of Columbia, our Nation's 
Capital. It now funds 23 such groups. In every other major city in the 
United States, major private arts groups receive Federal funds from 
their State arts councils, which frequently have such a major 
institution's funding category.
  That's not particularly important, but those who are involved in arts 
organizations understand that that's the money they depend upon. In 
D.C., they don't have that money to depend upon. No similar flow of 
government funds from any level is available to major arts groups in 
Washington, D.C.
  The 23 groups that receive this money employ thousands of people. 
Outreach efforts to schoolchildren is one of the principal things that 
is funded through this National Capital Arts grant program. If we 
didn't have this, those outreach programs would be virtually 
eliminated. They constitute almost all of the arts outreach and arts 
educational programs that are available to children in the D.C. schools 
and schools in the suburbs. It's a program that has widespread popular 
support. It is not a lot of money for each organization, but it's 
essential money to enable them to continue functioning.
  The fact that we are talking about such a small amount of money in 
the context of such an enormous deficit, it really seems wrong that 
children in our Nation's Capital would be denied outreach from these 
arts institutions that are proximate to where they live but wholly 
inaccessible without this program. So I would urge that we have a

[[Page 2150]]

heart, particularly for the children in the schools in Washington, D.C. 
Reject this amendment and leave this very small amount of money in this 
interior appropriations bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the amendment. I want to associate 
myself with the remarks of the ranking member, Mr. Moran. This is a 
program that was created because the arts institutions in the District 
of Columbia, many of them do not get any support from the District of 
Columbia government. And there's no State government. In New York, they 
get money from the city, from the boroughs, from the State government 
for their major arts institutions.
  This program was a very modest program that helps 23 performing arts 
institutions which are extremely important, all of which have very 
solid educational programs that help inner city youth here. We have a 
very high population of inner city youth in the District of Columbia.
  So I just think this has been a proven program. It is very modest. 
It's been cut in half. Last year I think we had it at about $9.5 
million. It has been cut in half. I think we should leave that. I think 
the committee has made a decision; and to go further would just be, in 
my mind, punitive.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Canseco).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CANSECO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  2020

  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1771.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Presidio Trust, Presidio Trust Fund'' shall be $15,000,000.


                 Amendment No. 381 Offered by Mr. Reed

  Mr. REED. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 282, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(decreased by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 359, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. REED. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment 
seeking to rescind $15 million of funds out of this continuing 
resolution.
  As I've listened to the debate here this evening and yesterday and 
over the last few days, as a freshman Member of Congress, I've come to 
a realization that part of the problem is that many Members of this 
esteemed body look at our spending in terms of it's a relatively small 
amount of money; it's a small sum. But we're talking about millions of 
dollars. We're talking about $15 million in this situation.
  Now, I proposed this amendment without any disrespect to any Member 
of this House. But I proposed it in a time when we face a national 
crisis that goes to our very existence for generations to come, a 
nation that won't be here for our children and our grandchildren.
  And when I look at the Presidio Trust fund and I look at the park--
and it's a great park. I concede that point. But the plan for the park 
was to be self-sufficient. And upon researching, going through page by 
page of this budget and doing the hard work, my staff and I have 
uncovered that this park is at the point where it can be self-
sufficient on its own.
  They receive grants of $80,000 from the Cowell Foundation for three 
projects. They have a $15 million gift from the private sector from 
Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. LucasArts video games and Industrial Light 
& Magic are leasing portions of the park, and it's a private revenue 
stream. This is a success story. And at this point it's time for us to 
put all our cards on the table and say, Now that you are standing on 
your own two feet, when we face this fiscal crisis, this government now 
has to make a responsible decision. And to me, that responsible 
decision is to allow the park to stand on its own two feet--it has 
shown plenty of ability to do that--and save the children and 
grandchildren so that we can have a nation that they can be proud of 
and can have a nation that they can live in, because that's the point 
that we are in our Nation's history.
  So I stand today and ask your support for this amendment. I think it 
is the responsible action to do. And I applaud this process, because 
this process is being conducted in the open and through a vigorous 
debate, and that's what the American people have called upon us to do. 
No line of our spending shall be left under stones. We shall uncover 
each stone.
  I urge all my fellow Members to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment that would 
eliminate funding for the Presidio Trust.
  The Presidio was in continuous use as a military post from 1776 until 
1994. An Army installation, the post was closed in 1994 as part of the 
BRAC process and transferred to the National Park Service. In 1996, 
Congress established the Presidio Trust to govern this unique national 
park site and to ensure its preservation by making it financially self-
sustaining. And that's exactly what has happened.
  Over the past 12 years, appropriations as a percentage of the overall 
trust budget have been reduced from over 95 percent Federal funding in 
fiscal year 1998 to less than 20 percent in fiscal year 2010. The 
current ratio of private investment in the Presidio to Federal 
appropriations is already greater than 4:1. Appropriations, though, are 
authorized through fiscal year 2012. That was the deal. After 2012, the 
trust itself, by itself, alone, is responsible for long-term operations 
and maintenance of the Presidio.
  Since it took over management of the Presidio in 1998, the trust has 
rehabilitated and leased 97 percent of the Presidio's housing units and 
rehabilitated 75 percent of the Presidio's 433 very historic buildings. 
I've been there. I've seen it. It's phenomenal what the trust has 
accomplished.
  Eliminating funds just 1 year short of its goal violates the spirit 
of the 1996 law, and it undermines the trust's ability to achieve self-
sufficiency. This would result in higher future obligations, as the 
Federal Government might have to assume full responsibility to maintain 
the historic properties.
  It also sends a terrible signal to communities across the country 
that may also have innovative solutions in partnering with the Federal 
Government. They are time-controlled; in other words, it's not forever. 
But they say for a certain period of time, if you'll partner with us, 
we'll take this responsibility off your hands.
  The $23 million appropriated for the trust in fiscal year 2010 has 
created 860 jobs. Federal appropriations in this current fiscal year 
will help expedite rehabilitation of historic buildings and take 
advantage of favorable construction costs that exist today.
  At a recent oversight hearing, the members of our Appropriations 
subcommittee received assurances that the trust will accomplish its 
financial stewardship and public use goals. That was the deal. They 
said, We'll meet our part of the deal, assuming that the Federal 
Government will meet its obligation.
  As one of the Nation's oldest and most important military posts, the 
trust has had some unique extraordinary challenges since the Defense 
Department closed out its installation, but the trust is well on its 
way toward

[[Page 2151]]

meeting its legislative objectives. It should not be undermined by this 
amendment.
  This has worked well. It's an example for the rest of the country. 
Let it serve as an example. One more year to go, and then it will be 
off our books. The trust will take over responsibility, and we will 
point out that this is the way to do it, in partnership, where we will 
not be perpetually responsible but, in fact, the private sector will 
come in, let the market work and have a national gem, really, a 
national asset for everyone to visit and appreciate and learn from.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time and strongly urge 
opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairman, I rise in concurrence with the comments 
of my ranking member from Virginia. Funding for the Presidio in this CR 
is $8.2 million below the FY10 enacted level, and $7 million below the 
fiscal year 2008 level.
  When the government closed down the Presidio Army base in 1994, it 
was transferred to the National Park Service as part of the Golden Gate 
National Recreation Area. It could have been turned over to the 
National Park Service and run as a historic park, but that would have 
cost tens of millions of dollars per year to the taxpayers. Instead, 
Congress devised a unique management and funding model by creating the 
Presidio Trust to preserve the Presidio and help it become financially 
self-sufficient. The trust manages 80 percent of the Presidio lands, 
including most of the buildings and infrastructure. The Park Service 
manages the remaining 20 percent, including the coastal areas of the 
Presidio. The Presidio Trust receives Federal appropriations that are 
diminishing each year and, as was mentioned, will cease at the end of 
FY12, when it becomes self-sufficient.
  This truly is a model of how we can do these things where they will 
become self-sufficient and off the roll of the taxpayer. But our part 
of this is we have to keep our end of the deal. And so through FY12 we 
need to make sure that we keep our word on what was agreed on in 1996 
and let this Presidio Trust take over and become self-sufficient at the 
end of the next fiscal year.
  So I rise in opposition to this amendment and would encourage my 
colleagues to vote against it.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. REED. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  2030

  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1772.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission, Salaries and 
     Expenses'' shall be $0.
       Sec. 1773.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission, Capital 
     Construction'' shall be $0.
       Sec. 1774.  Section 409 of division A of Public Law 111-88 
     (123 Stat. 2957) is amended by striking ``and 111-8'' and 
     inserting ``111-8, and 111-88'', and by striking ``2009'' and 
     inserting ``2010''.
       Sec. 1775.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     section 415 of division A of Public Law 111-88 shall be $0.
       Sec. 1776.  Section 433 of division A of Public Law 111-88 
     (123 Stat. 2965) is amended by striking ``2010'' and ``2009'' 
     and inserting ``2011'' and ``2010'', respectively.
       Sec. 1777.  Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this division, each of the following departments 
     and agencies shall submit to the House and Senate Committees 
     on Appropriations a spending, expenditure, or operating plan 
     for fiscal year 2011 at a level of detail below the account 
     level:
       (1) Department of the Interior.
       (2) Environmental Protection Agency.
       (3) Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
       (4) Indian Health Service.
       (5) Council on Environmental Quality.
       (6) Smithsonian Institution.
       (7) National Gallery of Art.
       (8) National Endowment for the Arts.
       (9) National Endowment for the Humanities.
       Sec. 1778.  None of the funds made available by this 
     division or any other Act may be used to implement, 
     administer, or enforce Secretarial Order No. 3310 issued by 
     the Secretary of the Interior on December 22, 2010.

 TITLE VIII--LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION, AND RELATED 
                                AGENCIES

       Sec. 1801.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Labor, Employment and Training 
     Administration, Training and Employment Services'' shall be 
     $221,699,000: Provided, That the amounts included under such 
     heading in division D of Public Law 111-117 shall be applied 
     to funds appropriated by this division as follows: by 
     substituting ``$0'' for each amount included in paragraph 
     (1); by substituting ``$167,538,000'' for ``$470,038,000''; 
     by substituting ``$29,160,000'' for ``$229,160,000''; by 
     substituting ``$0'' for ``$200,000,000''; by substituting 
     ``$0'' for ``$102,500,000''; by substituting ``$54,161,000'' 
     for ``$389,043,000''; by substituting ``$44,561,000'' for 
     ``$93,450,000''; by substituting ``$0'' for ``$48,889,000''; 
     by substituting ``$0'' for ``$108,493,000''; by substituting 
     ``$0'' for ``$40,000,000''; by substituting ``$0'' for 
     ``$125,000,000''; and by substituting ``$0'' for 
     ``$12,500,000'': Provided further, That of the funds made 
     available for dislocated worker employment and training 
     activities under such heading in division D of Public Law 
     111-117, $65,000,000 is rescinded: Provided further, That of 
     the funds made available for dislocated worker employment and 
     training activities under such heading in division D of 
     Public Law 111-117, up to 25 percent may be used for the 
     period April 1, 2011, through September 30, 2011, for youth 
     activities.
       Sec. 1802. (a) Of the unobligated balances available for 
     ``Department of Labor, Departmental Management, Office of Job 
     Corps'', $300,000,000 is rescinded.
       (b) None of the funds made available by this division or 
     any prior Act may be used to initiate a competition for any 
     new Job Corps center not previously approved by the Secretary 
     of Labor as a Jobs Corps center through a competitive 
     selection process.
       Sec. 1803.  Of the unobligated balances of the funds made 
     available for ``Department of Labor, Employment and Training 
     Administration, Training and Employment Services, Federally 
     Administered Programs, Dislocated Workers Assistance National 
     Reserve'' in division D of Public Law 111-117, $100,000,000 
     is rescinded.
       Sec. 1804.  Of the unobligated balances of the funds made 
     available for ``Department of Labor, Employment and Training 
     Administration, Training and Employment Services, National 
     Activities, Evaluation'', $10,000,000 is rescinded.
       Sec. 1805.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Labor, Employment and Training 
     Administration, Community Service Employment for Older 
     Americans'' shall be $300,425,000, and for purposes of funds 
     appropriated by this division, the amounts under such heading 
     in division D of Public Law 111-117 shall be applied by 
     substituting ``$0'' for ``$225,000,000'', and the first and 
     second provisos under such heading in such division shall not 
     apply.
       Sec. 1806.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration, 
     Salaries and Expenses'' shall be $355,843,000, of which up to 
     $15,000,000 shall be available to the Secretary of Labor to 
     be transferred to ``Departmental Management, Salaries and 
     Expenses'' for activities related to the Department of 
     Labor's caseload before the Federal Mine Safety and Health 
     Review Commission, and the amounts included under the heading 
     ``Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration, 
     Salaries and Expenses'' in division D of Public Law 111-117 
     shall be applied to funds appropriated by this division by 
     substituting ``$0'' for ``$1,450,000''.
       Sec. 1807.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Labor, Departmental Management'' shall be 
     $315,154,000, and the third proviso under such heading in 
     division D of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated by this division.
       Sec. 1808.  Of the unobligated balances available for 
     ``Department of Labor, Working Capital Fund'', $3,900,000 is 
     permanently rescinded, to be derived solely from amounts 
     available in the Investment in Reinvention Fund (other than 
     amounts that were designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget 
     or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985).
       Sec. 1809. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources 
     and Services Administration, Health Resources and Services'' 
     shall be $5,313,171,000, of which (1) not more than 
     $100,000,000 shall be available until expended for carrying 
     out the provisions of Public Law 104-73 and for expenses 
     incurred by the Department of Health and Human Services 
     pertaining to administrative claims made under such law; (2) 
     no funds shall be for the program under title X of the Public 
     Health Service Act (referred to in this title as the ``PHS 
     Act''), to provide for voluntary family planning projects; 
     and (3)

[[Page 2152]]

     $352,835,000 shall be available for health professions 
     programs under titles VII and VIII and section 340G of the 
     PHS Act.
       (b) The eighteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first, twenty-
     second, and twenty-fifth provisos under the heading 
     ``Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources 
     and Services Administration, Health Resources and Services'' 
     of division D of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated by this division.
       (c) Sections 747(c)(2) and 751(j)(2) of the PHS Act, the 
     proportional funding amounts in paragraphs (1) through (4) of 
     section 756(e) of such Act, and section 511(f) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 711(f)) shall not apply to funds made 
     available by this division for ``Department of Health and 
     Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, 
     Health Resources and Services''.
       (d) For purposes of this section, section 10503(d) of 
     Public Law 111-148 shall be applied as if ``, over the fiscal 
     year 2008 level,'' were stricken from such section.

  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. As I visit all the communities of my district, I am asked 
about high unemployment, how government can help promote job growth, 
and how we can get the economy working again for families trying to 
make ends meet. It is clear that the top priority in New York and 
across the country is creating jobs. But when I'm in Washington, I 
don't hear the House leadership answering that call.
  Since the beginning of the year, we have yet to debate a single bill 
that would create a single job. There have been no attempts to make the 
targeted investments in innovation and education that will help us win 
the next century, as the President mentioned in the State of the Union.
  In the last decade, unemployment has skyrocketed while the number of 
abortions has decreased. Yet today the majority is pursuing an extreme 
assault on women's health and reproductive rights by eliminating the 
cost-effective Family Planning Program.
  My amendment would restore $317 million for title X family planning 
because it is a wise investment. Publicly supported family planning 
clinics save taxpayers nearly $4 for every $1 that is spent providing 
contraceptive care. In New York, more than 340,000 women are served by 
title X funding clinics and 66 percent have incomes at or below poverty 
level. Elimination of the program in the CR would only guarantee higher 
government health care costs for these low-income Americans in future 
years.
  If our goal is to cut spending, it is reckless to eliminate this 
program that saves taxpayer dollars. It is unconscionable that those 
Americans who most need access to the affordable basic health care 
title X provides, like cancer screenings and contraceptives, have 
become victims of the extreme right's divisive partisan attempts to 
deny women a full range of legal health services.
  Even as we consider this wrongheaded bill, they are simultaneously 
pursuing legislation and authorizing committees to roll back the clock 
on a woman's right to choose, women's services available to victims of 
rape and incest, and even allow hospitals to deny lifesaving treatments 
for women.
  Not once have I heard a constituent say that it's important for the 
government to get to work on restricting women's health choices and 
denying basic care. At a time of high unemployment and enormous 
economic challenges, Congress should focus on job creation. The assault 
on women's health must stop now.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chair, I rise to support this amendment to 
restore funding to Title X family planning.
  By slashing Title X family planning services in the budget, 
Republicans risk the lives and safety of millions of American women. 
These proposed cuts to family planning represent the opening salvo in 
an all-out war on women's health. I ask you to join with me and with my 
colleagues to restore this vital funding to Title X family planning.
  Five million men and women depend on Title X providers for important 
preventive health care. Among other services, they received 2.3 million 
breast exams, 2.2 million cervical cancer screenings, and nearly 1 
million HIV tests. These services prevent fatal illness; and for those 
who do have the misfortune to contract HIV/AIDS or cancer, Title X 
providers ensure that they receive life-saving treatment early, when it 
has the greatest potential for good.
  The proposed cuts in H.R. 1 would eviscerate these life-saving 
services.
  While these cuts to family planning were proposed under the guise of 
being ``fiscally responsible,'' that is far from the truth.
  For every dollar invested in Title X family planning services, 
taxpayers save just under $4. Cutting family planning is not fiscally 
responsible, and will not reduce the bottom line.
  Moreover, this cut has nothing to do with ending funding for 
abortions, despite claims to the contrary. Title X family planning 
funds simply do not fund abortions. If we want to reduce the number of 
abortions in this country, the methodology is clear--empower women to 
prevent unintended pregnancies through education and access to 
contraception. And, that is precisely what family planning funding 
does.
  In my home State of New York, cuts to Planned Parenthood would impact 
209,410 patients. Just last year, Planned Parenthood provided 70,490 
screenings for cervical cancer in New York, detecting 7,931 abnormal 
results requiring medical action. Another 67,957 women received breast 
exams. 138,501 tests for chlamydia helped to avert the leading cause of 
preventable infertility in America today. New Yorkers stand to lose 
valuable health services.
  Instead of cutting vital health care services, we should focus on 
rebuilding our economy and creating jobs.
  Mr. FARR. Madam Chair, I stand in strong support of the Lowey 
amendment to restore funding for Title X family planning programs. My 
colleagues have spoken about the achievements of Title X, so I want to 
focus on what elimination of this highly successful program would mean 
to the citizens of California.
  As you all know, California has been hit extremely hard by this 
recession and is struggling just to meet the basic needs of its 
residents. In 2010, Title X funded health care services for over 1.2 
million people--which represent 20 percent of all Title X participants. 
In my district alone, over 33,000 people relied on Title X-funded 
clinics for their primary health care needs. Eliminating Title X funds 
would result in a critical loss of vital health care services to an 
already struggling state with limited resources.
  My district has been profoundly affected by the Medicare 
reimbursement issue because, while we are a high cost area comparable 
to San Francisco, the reimbursement rate reflects rural costs. As a 
direct result of doctors no longer accepting Medicare patients, many 
seniors have been forced to turn to Title X clinics for their basic 
health care needs. Older adults, both men and women, are able to 
receive immunizations, physicals, diabetes testing, and STD testing and 
treatment, in addition to typical gynecological services. If Title X 
funds are eliminated, these seniors will lose the only access to health 
care that is available to them.
  A vote in support of this amendment is a vote in favor of allowing 
millions of Americans access to vital health care services. I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of the Lowey Amendment to restore funding 
to Title X.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of the Lowey 
amendment which restores lifesaving medical services to millions of 
young and low-income women and men who receive their basic health care 
through the 4,400 clinics nationwide receiving Title X funds. Let's be 
very clear about what services Title X family planning programs do and 
do not provide. First off and very importantly, federal law prohibits 
any Title X money from being used for abortion care. Plain and simple.
  Instead, these monies go toward breast and cervical cancer 
screenings, hypertension and blood pressure measurement, prenatal, 
post-partum and well-baby care, birth control and abstinence education.
  The statistics speak for themselves: contraceptive services at Title 
X centers annually prevent 973,000 unintended pregnancies, which would 
result in 433,000 unplanned births, 406,000 abortions, and 134,000 
miscarriages. Slashing this funding actually has the opposite effect of 
the so-called ``pro-life'' majority. Not only would the number of 
abortions rise by 40% if these funds are cut, defunding Title X 
jeopardizes the millions of women and their babies who benefit from 
these clinics.
  Given the objective benefits of this program which include annual 
savings of $3.4 billion, it is unclear how the anti-choice, Republican 
majority concludes that attacking and eliminating women's basic health 
care will improve our economy, erase our deficit, or create one single 
job. Once again, the message this majority is sending to women across 
this country is clear: They do not trust you to make your

[[Page 2153]]

own decisions about your own body and will cut or eliminate programs 
that help you do so.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, in a breathtaking and a radical step, the 
Republican majority has proposed to eliminate title X funding which has 
connected millions of American women to health care since 1970.
  In 2009, title X funding provided 2.3 million breast exams, 2.2 
million Pap tests, and nearly 1 million HIV tests to men and women 
both. This Republican Congress is trying to turn back the clock on 
women's health and turn back the clock on women's basic rights. They 
are taking us back to a day when family planning was not a given 
opportunity for women.
  In Connecticut, more than 62,000 men and women benefit from care at 
title X-funded health centers each year. Over 70 percent of them have a 
family income of less than $16,245 a year. In other words, this is the 
only way they can afford health care. In fact, six of every 10 women 
who seek care at a title X-funded center consider it their main source 
of medical care. Yet the majority is trying to take these important 
services away.
  It is argued that we need to cut title X services to reduce the 
deficit. This is simply not true. For every dollar invested in title X, 
taxpayers save just under $4. The fact of the matter is that vital 
preventive care and family planning services supported by title X save 
money and save lives.
  Make no mistake, cutting title X funding is a breathtaking and a 
radical step. The majority is using the guise of budget cutting to 
launch an assault on title X, which would endanger women's health. 
Understanding their purpose has nothing to do with the deficit. They 
want to impose their traditional view of a woman's role.
  Let's get real. This legislation is not about Federal funding for 
abortion. Federal funds, including title X, are already banned from 
going toward abortion services under the Hyde amendment. Rather, much 
like the repeal of health care reform, this is part of an agenda to 
force women back into traditional roles with limited opportunities. 
Under their proposal, more than 5 million people lose access to basic 
primary and preventive health care. As a cancer survivor myself, who is 
only here today because my cancer was found at stage I, I can tell you, 
losing access to screenings will cost lives.
  It comes down to this: The proposal to eliminate title X is a bad 
policy. It will hurt women and do nothing for our economy. It costs 
money. Instead of making it harder for women to get health care, we 
should be standing up for these vital services.
  The American public called for job creation and turning our economy 
around last November. I believe that my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle have not heeded that call. This bill will do nothing to 
create jobs nor reduce the deficit.
  On behalf of women, on behalf of middle class and working families we 
represent, I urge my colleagues to leave this extreme and divisive 
social agenda out of the picture of support. We should not be playing 
games with women's health and with basic rights.

                              {time}  2040

  Mrs. ROBY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. ROBY. I oppose increased funding for title X. We should not 
allocate Federal funds to groups like Planned Parenthood that use the 
money for abortion.
  Planned Parenthood has recently made plain the centrality of abortion 
to its mission, mandating that every affiliate have at least one clinic 
performing abortions within the next 2 years. Additionally, it is 
beyond shocking that Planned Parenthood employees were recently found 
on video aiding and abetting in the alleged sex trafficking of minors.
  This is not the first time that Planned Parenthood has shown such 
shocking behavior. It happened in my home State of Alabama back in 
2009. A Planned Parenthood counselor was caught on hidden camera 
telling an alleged 14-year-old statutory rape victim that the clinic 
``does sometime bend the rules a little bit'' rather than report sexual 
abuse to State authorities. Two years later, we are still seeing this 
outrageous behavior by Planned Parenthood employees. It is time to stop 
funding such an organization with taxpayer dollars.
  Planned Parenthood ignores statutory rape law reporting, pushes 
abortion procedures, and opposes any effort to elevate the legal status 
of a fetus at any stage of development. It is not a proud day that 
citizens learn that these activities have been continually funded by 
the Federal Government. It is an even worse day when we are told that 
our government has funded Planned Parenthood with more than $363 
million in government grants and contracts.
  Since fiscal year 1998, title X has seen increased funding for 10 of 
the 12 years. From fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2010, title X 
funding has increased by over 56 percent. In appropriations for fiscal 
year 2010, title X saw a 3.3 percent increase in funding, which was a 
$10 million increase over 2009 funding. This is unacceptable spending 
at a time that we must cut Federal spending.
  The continual action by Planned Parenthood and its employees is 
demeaning for women and a black eye on our society. Funding must be 
stopped. We should not spend any more taxpayer dollars to push Planned 
Parenthood's agenda to take away the rights of the unborn.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment to add money to 
title X.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1810. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     the first undesignated paragraph under the heading 
     ``Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention, Disease Control, Research, 
     and Training'' shall be $5,742,989,000, of which (1) 
     $750,000,000 shall be derived from funds transferred, 
     pursuant to section 4002(c) of Public Law 111-148, from 
     amounts appropriated by section 4002(b) of such Public Law; 
     (2) no funds shall be available for acquisition of real 
     property, equipment, construction, and renovation of 
     facilities; and (3) $523,533,000 shall remain available until 
     expended for the Strategic National Stockpile under section 
     319F-2 of the PHS Act.
       (b) The amount included before the first proviso under the 
     heading ``Department of Health and Human Services, Centers 
     for Disease Control and Prevention, Disease Control, 
     Research, and Training'' of division D of Public Law 111-117 
     shall be applied to funds appropriated by this division by 
     substituting ``$0'' for ``$20,620,000''.
       (c) Paragraphs (1) through (3) of section 2821(b) of the 
     PHS Act shall not apply to funds made available by this 
     division.
       (d) For purposes of this section, section 4002(c) of Public 
     Law 111-148 shall be applied as if ``, over the fiscal year 
     2008 level,'' were stricken from such section.
       Sec. 1811. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Health and Human Services, National 
     Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and 
     Infectious Diseases'' shall be $4,214,275,000, and the 
     Director of the National Institutes of Health shall transfer 
     up to $256,627,000, on a pro rata basis, based on total 
     funding levels, from the other Institutes, Centers, and 
     Office of the Director accounts within the National 
     Institutes of Health Account to ``National Institute of 
     Allergy and Infectious Diseases'', and the requirement under 
     ``National Institute of Allergy and Infection Diseases'' in 
     division D of Public Law 111-117 for a transfer from 
     Biodefense Countermeasures funds shall not apply.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, 
     the first proviso under the heading ``Department of Health 
     and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National 
     Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases'' in division D 
     of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds appropriated 
     by this division.
       Sec. 1812.  The amount provided by section 1101 for 
     ``Department of Health and Human Services, National 
     Institutes of Health'' is reduced by $260,000,000, through a 
     pro rata reduction in all of the Institutes, Centers, and 
     Office of the Director accounts within ``Department of Health 
     and Human Services, National Institutes of Health'', based on 
     the total of the projected funding levels for the Non-
     competing Research Project Grants in fiscal year 2011 for 
     each such Institute, Center, and Office of the Director 
     account. In addition, the Director of the National Institutes 
     of Health shall ensure that the average

[[Page 2154]]

     of the total cost of Competing Research Project Grants for 
     all of the Institutes, Centers, and Office of the Director 
     accounts within ``Department of Health and Human Services, 
     National Institutes of Health'' during fiscal year 2011 shall 
     not exceed $400,000.
       Sec. 1813.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Health and Human Services, National 
     Institutes of Health, Buildings and Facilities'' shall be 
     $22,700,000.
       Sec. 1814. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse 
     and Mental Health Services Administration, Substance Abuse 
     and Mental Health Services'' shall be $3,202,152,000.
       (b) The amount included before the first proviso under the 
     heading ``Department of Health and Human Services, Substance 
     Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Substance 
     Abuse and Mental Health Services'' in division D of Public 
     Law 111-117 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this 
     division by substituting ``$0'' for ``$14,518,000''.
       (c) The second proviso under the heading ``Department of 
     Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
     Services Administration, Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
     Services'' of division D of Public Law 111-117 shall not 
     apply to funds appropriated by this division.


         Amendment No. 565 Offered by Mr. Bass of New Hampshire

  Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 291, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $98,000,000)''.
       Page 293, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 293, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. Madam Chairman, my amendment very simply 
adds $50 million to the Low Energy Assistance Program, otherwise known 
as LIHEAP. Winters in the Northeast and elsewhere in America are long 
and hard, and especially this year it has been difficult. It has been a 
tough year. In January we saw more or less twice the average amount of 
snow. Temperatures have been well below average in some parts of the 
country; and there are similar stories not only in New Hampshire, but 
elsewhere in the Northeast and around the Nation.
  The problem with reducing the contingency fund in the Low Income 
Energy Assistance Plan is we are in the middle of the winter right now, 
and what my amendment does is add $50 million to ensure that we have 
adequate resources to make it through March and into April. The 
amendment also reduces the substance abuse and mental health services 
by an equivalent amount, but that is only about 1 percent of the total 
funding for that line item.
  Let me point out that what this amendment will do is ensure that low-
income individuals in America have the necessary resources in order to 
ensure that they have adequate heat throughout the rest of the year.
  This is a difficult process that we are going through here, and I 
recognize there are trade-offs; but this is a very small change in a 
safety net that provides an enormous resource very quickly. We can 
debate the rest of the Low Income Energy Assistance Plan later in the 
year. What this $50 million increase does is make it possible to get 
through the winter.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REHBERG. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Montana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. REHBERG. We accept this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Hampshire will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1815.  The amount included under the heading 
     ``Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for 
     Healthcare Research and Quality, Healthcare Research and 
     Quality'' of division D of Public Law 111-117 shall be 
     applied to funds appropriated by this division by 
     substituting ``$372,053,000'' for ``397,053,000''.
       Sec. 1816. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     amounts transferred from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust 
     Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust 
     Fund for ``Department of Health and Human Services, Centers 
     for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Program Management'' 
     shall be $3,012,162,000, of which the level for the Research, 
     Demonstration, and Evaluation program shall be $0.
       (b) The amount under the third proviso under the heading 
     ``Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for 
     Medicare and Medicaid Services, Program Management'' in 
     division D of Public Law 111-117 shall be applied to funds 
     appropriated by this division by substituting ``$9,120,000'' 
     for ``$65,600,000''.
       (c) The sixth proviso under the heading ``Department of 
     Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
     Services, Program Management'' in division D of Public Law 
     111-117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this 
     division.
       Sec. 1817. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for 
     Children and Families, Low Income Home Energy Assistance'' 
     shall be $4,709,672,000, of which $4,509,672,000 shall be for 
     payments under subsections (b) and (d) of section 2602 of the 
     Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 
     8621); and of which $200,000,000 shall be for payments under 
     subsection (e) of such Act, to be made notwithstanding the 
     designation requirements of such subsection.
       (b) The second proviso under the heading ``Department of 
     Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and 
     Families, Low Income Home Energy Assistance'' of division D 
     of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds appropriated 
     by this division.


                Amendment No. 160 Offered by Mr. Markey

  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 293, line 4, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $390,328,000)''.
       Page 293, line 8, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $390,328,000)''.
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following new sections:

     SEC. 4002. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``End Big Oil Tax Subsidies 
     Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 4003. AMORTIZATION OF GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL 
                   EXPENDITURES.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 167(h)(5) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
     ``major integrated oil company'' and inserting ``covered 
     large oil company''.
       (b) Covered Large Oil Company.--Paragraph (5) of section 
     167(h) of such Act is amended by redesignating subparagraph 
     (B) as subparagraph (C) and by inserting after subparagraph 
     (A) the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Covered large oil company.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `covered large oil company' means a 
     taxpayer which--
       ``(i) is a major integrated oil company, or
       ``(ii) has gross receipts in excess of $50,000,000 for the 
     taxable year.

     For purposes of clause (ii), all persons treated as a single 
     employer under subsections (a) and (b) of section 52 shall be 
     treated as 1 person.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The heading for paragraph (5) of 
     section 167(h) of such Code is amended by inserting ``and 
     other large taxpayers''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2011.

     SEC. 4004. PRODUCING OIL AND GAS FROM MARGINAL WELLS.

       (a) In General.--Section 45I of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e) Exception for Taxpayer Who Is Not Small, Independent 
     Oil and Gas Company.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any 
     taxpayer which is not a small, independent oil and gas 
     company for the taxable year.
       ``(2) Aggregation rule.--For purposes of paragraph (1), all 
     persons treated as a single employer under subsections (a) 
     and (b) of section 52 shall be treated as 1 person.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to credits determined for taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 2011.

     SEC. 4005. ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Section 43 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:

[[Page 2155]]

       ``(f) Exception for Taxpayer Who Is Not Small, Independent 
     Oil and Gas Company.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any 
     taxpayer which is not a small, independent oil and gas 
     company for the taxable year.
       ``(2) Aggregation rule.--For purposes of paragraph (1), all 
     persons treated as a single employer under subsections (a) 
     and (b) of section 52 shall be treated as 1 person.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2011.

     SEC. 4006. INTANGIBLE DRILLING AND DEVELOPMENT COSTS IN THE 
                   CASE OF OIL AND GAS WELLS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 263 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new sentence: ``This subsection shall not apply 
     to amounts paid or incurred by a taxpayer in any taxable year 
     in which such taxpayer is not a small, independent oil and 
     gas company, determined by deeming all persons treated as a 
     single employer under subsections (a) and (b) of section 52 
     as 1 person.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2011.

     SEC. 4007. PERCENTAGE DEPLETION.

       (a) In General.--Section 613A of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) Exception for Taxpayer Who Is Not Small, Independent 
     Oil and Gas Company.--
       ``(1) In general.--This section and section 611 shall not 
     apply to any taxpayer which is not a small, independent oil 
     and gas company for the taxable year.
       ``(2) Aggregation rule.--For purposes of paragraph (1), all 
     persons treated as a single employer under subsections (a) 
     and (b) of section 52 shall be treated as 1 person.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 613A(c)(1) of such Code 
     is amended by striking ``subsection (d)'' and inserting 
     ``subsections (d) and (f)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2011.

     SEC. 4008. TERTIARY INJECTANTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 193 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Exception for Taxpayer Who Is Not Small, Independent 
     Oil and Gas Company.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any 
     taxpayer which is not a small, independent oil and gas 
     company for the taxable year.
       ``(2) Exception for qualified carbon dioxide disposed in 
     secure geological storage.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply in 
     the case of any qualified tertiary injectant expense paid or 
     incurred for any tertiary injectant is qualified carbon 
     dioxide (as defined in section 45Q(b)) which is disposed of 
     by the taxpayer in secure geological storage (as defined by 
     section 45Q(d)).
       ``(3) Aggregation rule.--For purposes of paragraph (1), all 
     persons treated as a single employer under subsections (a) 
     and (b) of section 52 shall be treated as 1 person.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to expenses incurred after December 31, 2011.

     SEC. 4009. PASSIVE ACTIVITY LOSSES AND CREDITS LIMITED.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 469(c) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(C) Exception for taxpayer who is not small, independent 
     oil and gas company.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any 
     taxpayer which is not a small, independent oil and gas 
     company for the taxable year.
       ``(ii) Aggregation rule.--For purposes of clause (i), all 
     persons treated as a single employer under subsections (a) 
     and (b) of section 52 shall be treated as 1 person.''.

     SEC. 4010. INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTION 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 199 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e) Exception for Taxpayer Who Is Not Small, Independent 
     Oil and Gas Company.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the 
     income derived from the production, transportation, or 
     distribution of oil, natural gas, or any primary product 
     (within the meaning of subsection (d)(9)) thereof by any 
     taxpayer which for the taxable year is an oil and gas company 
     which is not a small, independent oil and gas company.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2011.

     SEC. 4011. PROHIBITION ON USING LAST-IN, FIRST-OUT ACCOUNTING 
                   FOR MAJOR INTEGRATED OIL COMPANIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 472 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(h) Major Integrated Oil Companies.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this section, a major integrated oil 
     company (as defined in section 167(h)) may not use the method 
     provided in subsection (b) in inventorying of any goods.''.
       (b) Effective Date and Special Rule.--
       (1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
     apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2011.
       (2) Change in method of accounting.--In the case of any 
     taxpayer required by the amendment made by this section to 
     change its method of accounting for its first taxable year 
     beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act--
       (A) such change shall be treated as initiated by the 
     taxpayer,
       (B) such change shall be treated as made with the consent 
     of the Secretary of the Treasury, and
       (C) the net amount of the adjustments required to be taken 
     into account by the taxpayer under section 481 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be taken into account 
     ratably over a period (not greater than 8 taxable years) 
     beginning with such first taxable year.

     SEC. 4012. MODIFICATIONS OF FOREIGN TAX CREDIT RULES 
                   APPLICABLE TO DUAL CAPACITY TAXPAYERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 901 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection (n) as 
     subsection (o) and by inserting after subsection (m) the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(n) Special Rules Relating to Dual Capacity Taxpayers.--
       ``(1) General rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this chapter, any amount paid or accrued by a dual capacity 
     taxpayer to a foreign country or possession of the United 
     States for any period with respect to combined foreign oil 
     and gas income (as defined in section 907(b)(1)) shall not be 
     considered a tax to the extent such amount exceeds the amount 
     (determined in accordance with regulations) which would have 
     been required to be paid if the taxpayer were not a dual 
     capacity taxpayer.
       ``(2) Dual capacity taxpayer.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `dual capacity taxpayer' means, with 
     respect to any foreign country or possession of the United 
     States, a person who--
       ``(A) is subject to a levy of such country or possession, 
     and
       ``(B) receives (or will receive) directly or indirectly a 
     specific economic benefit (as determined in accordance with 
     regulations) from such country or possession.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to taxes paid or accrued in taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 2011.
       (2) Contrary treaty obligations upheld.--The amendments 
     made by this section shall not apply to the extent contrary 
     to any treaty obligation of the United States.

  Mr. REHBERG. I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, we all recognize that we must make 
calculated decisions to drive down our deficit, but today we see the 
cold calculations of the Republican leadership, who are cutting 
hundreds of millions of dollars that would help our Nation's poorest 
families heat their homes while continuing the billions in taxpayer 
subsidies we send to big oil companies.
  My amendment would fully restore LIHEAP funding and reduce the 
deficit by repealing these $40 billion in tax breaks for Big Oil. Oil 
companies don't need the 100-year-old tax breaks to sell $100-per-
barrel oil while making $100 billion per year.
  For millions of families across the country this year, heating bills 
have been piling up along with the snow, and so are the record numbers 
of people turning to LIHEAP to help them get through the winter.

                              {time}  2050

  In my State of Massachusetts alone, LIHEAP is projected to help 
250,000 families this winter. But even as the mercury has dropped, 
House Republicans are now considering dropping this important safety 
net for millions of low-income families nationwide. The only way this 
bill is going to help families heat their homes would be if they tossed 
all 359 pages in the fireplace.
  It takes a frigid heart for the Republican leadership to continue to 
defend tax breaks for oil and gas companies while putting heating fuel 
assistance for America's neediest on ice. But that's exactly what they 
are doing.
  The majority spending bill presents us with a false choice. We 
shouldn't be cutting heating assistance for the poorest families before 
repealing the $40 billion in tax subsidies to big oil companies, the 
most profitable companies

[[Page 2156]]

in the history of the world. The Republicans can continue to make their 
choices, but the American people will not stand with them. When they 
are faced with giving tax breaks to Exxon or fuel assistance to low-
income Americans, they have chosen Exxon. When they are forced to 
choose between a free lunch for BP or lunch for hungry senior citizens, 
they make the choice for BP. We should not be balancing the budget on 
the backs of the poorest families. I urge support for this amendment to 
protect the neediest amongst us with a ``no'' vote on this cold-hearted 
funding bill.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to any 
cuts to the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, in 
this misguided Republican CR.
  Mr. Chair, cutting LIHEAP would literally leave thousands of families 
and seniors in the cold.
  My constituents in the 3rd congressional district and people across 
the country, are experiencing one of the coldest winters on record.
  The number of households served by LIHEAP has skyrocketed in recent 
years, jumping from 5.8 million in fiscal year 2008 to a projected 8.9 
million in fiscal year 2011.
  In just this year alone, Massachusetts expects to see a 21 percent 
increase in the number of eligible applications.
  And, to make matters worse, the cost of home heating oil continues to 
go up this winter. Since November, the cost of heating oil has gone 
from $3.11 to $3.58 a gallon.
  This means that the average family living in New England is now 
paying about $30 more for home heating than they initially expected at 
the start of this winter.
  It is unconscionable that we would even consider cutting heating 
assistance at a time like this.
  My Republican colleagues seem to have no problem supporting tax 
breaks for millionaires and billionaires but, when it comes to families 
and seniors struggling to heat their homes, they have no problem saying 
``so be it.''
  I understand that we need to reduce our deficit and long-term debt 
but doing so by literally leaving thousands of Americans out in the 
cold is exactly the wrong approach.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose cuts to LIHEAP and oppose 
this CR.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The cuts contained in these sections to the Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program--LIHEAP--are dangerous, and I rise to oppose them. 
The Republican continuing resolution cuts $390.3 million in funding 
from LIHEAP's emergency contingency fund for the remaining seven months 
of this fiscal year. Those are cuts that are made on the backs of the 
low-income residents, like those I represent in the cold and snowy 
Capital Region of New York, who struggle to pay for the cost of home 
heating oil and natural gas.
  LIHEAP is a widely supported, essential program that delivers short-
term aid to our most vulnerable neighbors, including the elderly on 
fixed incomes. LIHEAP provides a vital safety net, allowing families 
and seniors to stay healthy and protected from cold winters and hot 
summers. It keeps those receiving help from having to make the heart-
breaking decision about whether to pay to keep the heat on, or to pay 
for food and prescription drugs.
  The numbers of households receiving assistance reached record levels 
this year, increasing from 7.7 million to 8.8 million. The rise in 
participation includes only households that are below the maximum 
income level--$33,525 for a family of four this year. The need for the 
continued support of LIHEAP is clear--the program was only able to help 
one in five eligible Americans. Four out of five families in need went 
without this assistance, and were left out in the cold.
  The Republican continuing resolution cuts $390.3 million in funding 
from LIHEAP's contingency fund.The LIHEAP contingency fund allocates 
emergency funding to states dealing with emergencies, like cold snaps, 
heat waves, or spikes in energy prices that force low-income Americans 
to cut off their heat. So far this year, the Administration has 
released $200 million in contingency funds, illustrating the need for 
full funding of the contingency fund. I do not think we can afford to 
let seven more months pass and risk another blizzard, or another heat 
wave, and leave our nation's vulnerable citizens out on their own.
  In FY 2010, my home state of New York received about $57.8 million in 
contingency funds, but in FY 2011 the state has only received about $26 
million. These CR cuts would mean that New York loses out on about half 
the contingency fund money it saw during the same period last year. 
Given the fact that this winter has been comparably cold and seen 
substantially more snow, my state and my constituents will be losing 
out tremendously with these cuts.
  The continued need for LIHEAP funding is clear to me as I travel 
around my district and talk to my constituents. Staff in my district 
offices help connect seniors and low-income families to LIHEAP for 
desperately needed assistance. Cutting funding for this program is, in 
my mind, unconscionable. We cannot leave behind our nation's most 
vulnerable in the dead of winter.
  The Majority is lauding the fact that this bill represents the 
largest spending cut in the history of our country. If they want to cut 
funding to satisfy their base, fine. But I will not stand for cutting 
LIHEAP funding. I will not support budget cuts balanced on the backs of 
seniors on fixed incomes, struggling to make it through this cold 
winter. Madam Chair, I urge defeat of this bill.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. REHBERG. Madam Chair, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of 
rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' 
And the amendment directly amends existing law.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  The Chair finds that the amendment proposes directly to change 
existing law, to wit: the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
  As such, it constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2(c) of 
rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained.
  Mr. HIGGINS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HIGGINS. Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to the 
continuing resolution. Instead of fighting the war on cancer, this bill 
declares war on cancer research and those who undertake it. The 
National Cancer Institute Director, Dr. Harold Varmus, said it best in 
December when he warned that the proposed cuts would have dire and 
lethal consequences. He is right. The proposed $1.6 billion cut to the 
National Institutes of Health would undermine the most successful 
innovation model the world has ever seen. The classic view of 
innovation is that government funds basic science while industry comes 
up with new innovative products based on that science. This model has 
worked well.
  Over the past 40 years, 153 new FDA-approved drugs and vaccines were 
discovered through research carried out at public institutions with 
Federal funds. In the last 20 years alone, one out of every five 
important medical advances approved by the FDA was invented in a 
federally funded lab. Those inventions, which included 40 new drugs for 
cancer, are currently generating more than $100 billion a year in sales 
for drug and biotechnology firms.
  This includes drugs like Herceptin for breast cancer; Avastin for 
lung cancer; and Gleevec for gastrointestinal stromal tumors that 
inhibit and/or block cancer cell growth. This research in cancer alone 
supports over 1,300 clinical trials each year for promising new 
therapies for more than 200,000 cancer patients.
  President Nixon, a Republican, recognized the importance of a 
sustained public commitment in basic research when he signed the 
National Cancer Act in 1971. Last year, under President Obama, $5 
billion was provided to the National Cancer Institute to continue that 
mission.
  This funding bill would take us back years, decreasing the National 
Institutes of Health budget by 5 percent, disrupting this tremendously 
successful innovation model. The only failure in cancer research is 
when you quit or you're forced to quit because of the lack of funding.
  Our sustained commitment to biochemical research is vital to the 
community I serve in western New York, where approximately $100 billion 
in Federal funding supports research each

[[Page 2157]]

year. Institutions like Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Hauptman 
Woodward Medical Research Institute, the University of Buffalo, and 
companies along the Buffalo campus all rely on this funding to conduct 
research and translate that research into new treatments and products 
to improve quality of life. The cuts proposed would not only hurt these 
institutions and small businesses, it will hurt the entire Buffalo 
community that is now beginning to realize the tremendous economic 
benefit of this research.
  Alleviating suffering due to diseases like cancer in our lifetime 
should be Congress's goal. This continuing resolution falls dangerously 
short of that.
  Mr. MARKEY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HIGGINS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Right now, 2010, we spent $172 billion on Alzheimer's patients--$172 
billion, Medicare and Medicaid. You're cutting the budget for NIH to 
find a cure for Alzheimer's. By the time all the baby boomers have 
retired, the budget for each year is going to be $1 trillion to take 
care of the 15 million baby boomers that are going to have Alzheimer's 
in nursing homes.
  So what are you guys doing? You're saying, We're going to cut the 
budget for Medicaid, which pays for Alzheimer's patients in nursing 
homes, and we're going to cut the budget for the cure for the funding 
for the NIH. You're having it both ways. No cure--and you're then going 
to cut the money for these poor families under the Medicaid and 
Medicare budget. You shouldn't do this.
  The NIH are the National Institutes of Hope--researchers in 
medicine's field of dreams from which we harvest the findings that give 
hope to millions of families in our country. You are cutting this 
budget and you're not giving us an opportunity to make amendments in 
which we'll be able to put the funding in for the NIH budget. And that 
is just a very bad moral decision which you are making. And you're 
sending a false hope to people that you're actually solving the problem 
by cutting the NIH budget.
  All of those people who are going to have Alzheimer's--and it's a 
demographic certainty--are going to cost $1 trillion by 2050. You are 
doing nothing about that right now. And, by the way; you won't have the 
courage to tell people you're not going to take care of them in nursing 
homes across the countries. That demographic is going be so strong. Put 
the money in NIH for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, for all of these 
diseases. Please, God, let's at least agree on that as a bipartisan 
issue--that all our families are going to be equally struck by all of 
these diseases.
  The gentleman from New York has put his finger right on this great 
moral and political dilemma for our country. A stitch in time will save 
nine. The money we put up now will save not 9 but 900 times the money 
that is ultimately going to have to be spent on all of these 
Alzheimer's and Parkinson's patients. It is a demographic certainty.
  Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, today I am rising to speak out on the severe 
lack of centers and facilities for Level 1 trauma centers throughout 
this Nation. I introduced an amendment, which I am withdrawing.
  Madam Chair, in my home State of Illinois, our family members are 
dying due to the tragic lack of Level 1 trauma centers in close 
proximity to those who need it. Sadly, our newspaper headlines, 
including yesterday's Chicago Sun-Times, are filled with tragic stories 
of victims struck by bullets, stabbed, and other kinds of trauma 
visited upon them. Despite the best efforts of witnesses, bystanders, 
and paramedics, the lack of nearby Level 1 trauma centers dramatically 
reduces survival rates and drives up long-term acute care needs and 
costs.
  Madam Chair, in 1999, my son, 29-year-old Huey, was shot two blocks 
from a hospital. But he couldn't go to that hospital because they 
didn't have a Level 1 trauma center. So they had to transport him some 
10 miles away, where eventually he passed.
  This is just one example of one of these sad stories. It is not only 
patently unfair, but it's an injustice that in a Nation as vast and 
prosperous as ours that we have a tragic lack of such misplaced 
priorities by not having Level 1 trauma centers close to the 
communities where people reside. The fact that a community that's home 
to about 750,000 people on the greater South Side of Chicago, an 
overwhelming portion of which sits in my congressional district, does 
not have one Level 1 trauma care center literally results in the 
needless loss of life for far too many of us.

                              {time}  2100

  Our Nation has seen time and time again the amazing work that gifted 
trauma surgeons and fully equipped trauma care facilities can deliver 
to pull patients back from almost certain death. What I want to ensure, 
Madam Chair, is that the same level of care that is available in the 
affluent communities in this Nation is also available to the men, women 
and children in low-income communities.
  The aforementioned editorial in the Chicago Sun-Times reported on the 
tragic set of circumstances that befell an 18-year-old trauma victim, 
who, after being struck by a bullet in a drive-by shooting last August, 
could not go to the nearby University of Chicago Medical Center, which 
was only four blocks away, because that facility did not have a trauma 
center. The University of Chicago Medical Center, one of the major 
hospitals in this Nation, does not have a level 1 trauma center. 
Instead, at a time when every moment counts, when every minute counts 
to save a life, paramedics had to drive the victim 9 miles to the 
nearest level 1 trauma center, to Northwestern Memorial Hospital, where 
the victim later died.
  Madam Chair, situations like this simply should not happen in 
America. As I stand here today, I am fully aware of the need to provide 
funding to trauma centers for the financial losses they incur. The 
National Trauma Care Foundation has estimated that the economic loss to 
trauma centers due to their treatment of the uninsured and underinsured 
patients is $230 million per year.
  In the same Sun-Times editorial that I mentioned before, they also 
reported on a study last year by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 
which found that almost three-fourths of the Nation's emergency rooms 
are unable to provide round-the-clock specialty care and that almost 
one-fourth of hospitals cited this as a reason for the loss or 
downgrading of their trauma center designations.
  It is time for us to address the nationwide shortage of trauma care, 
especially in underserved areas.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIMM. Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRIMM. I rise in support of Representative Bass's amendment, 
which supports the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. The 
continuing resolution cuts the LIHEAP program by almost $400 million.
  Madam Chairwoman, this program is crucial to the homeowners of the 
Northeast, specifically in my district of Staten Island and Brooklyn, 
New York. LIHEAP helps low-income families and seniors remain healthy 
and secure from cold winters in the North and from hot summers in the 
South, as well as keeping them from having to face the impossible 
choice of paying their home energy bills or affording other 
necessities, such as prescription drugs and food.
  I am cognizant of the fact that at a time of record deficits and of 
reduced spending, we must tighten our respective belts. However, it is 
imperative that we make smart spending choices. That being said, I 
believe, when given the choice between ensuring that our seniors have 
the ability to heat their homes during frigid New York winters

[[Page 2158]]

or putting even more money into the catchall slush fund at NASA, there 
is no choice at all.
  As I have stated numerous times, I absolutely believe that deep 
budget cuts are required to get our government back on a sound fiscal 
path. However, we must first look to cut spending that is truly 
wasteful. For that reason, I stand in support of Representative Bass's 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I am really intrigued by my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle who have made the determination to cut 
LIHEAP by $390 million, a decision that, in fact, wasn't important 
enough to consider the well-being of people, whether they are in the 
Northeast, whether they are in the Midwest, or whether they are in 
other parts of the country which have very tough winters. So now what 
they would want to do is take money from other worthy programs that, in 
fact, they have cut but would further cut.
  In the instance of Mr. Bass's amendment, he would reduce the money 
from SAMHSA. That is the money for substance abuse and mental illness. 
What it does is help to reduce the impact of substance abuse and mental 
illness on America's communities by focusing its services on the people 
who are in most need. It translates research, and makes it useful and 
more effective so that we can get this into the general health care 
system.
  How do you treat addiction? How do you treat mental illness? Very 
difficult issues.
  So they would take that money, but they have cut LIHEAP, low-income 
energy assistance, which, for the most part, we are looking at low-
income people. Then if it's applied to seniors, what they will do is 
they won't cook their food at the right temperature, which will put 
their health in jeopardy. They will buy space heaters, potentially, 
which will put their lives in jeopardy.
  If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really cared about 
low-income energy assistance, they wouldn't have started to make their 
cuts there. They would have moved to the $40 billion in subsidies for 
oil and gas. They would have moved elsewhere to look for this funding. 
What they would have done is cut back on the subsidies for special 
interests to do that.
  It is a bit disingenuous, and it robs Peter to pay Paul; but I 
believe that that's the nature of what this unfixable bill is all 
about.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Chair, I rise today to support the amendment 
offered by my friend and colleague from New York (Mrs. Lowey). This 
amendment would restore vital funding to the title X family planning 
program.
  Now, I am all for reducing our deficit and for getting our fiscal 
house in order, but let's be clear on something: this cut to title X 
will not save money.
  The proponents of eliminating family planning funds want us to 
believe that cutting these funds is fiscally responsible and that it 
has to be done to balance our budget. What they don't want us to know 
is that investing in family planning actually saves money. For every 
public dollar invested in family planning, taxpayers saved nearly $4. 
So while cutting family planning appears to be a savings up front, over 
the long run it will cost us both in dollars and in the health and 
well-being of millions of women.
  While we are being honest, let's also discuss the other motive of the 
proponents of cutting title X. They argue that cutting funds for family 
planning will reduce abortions. Once again, they are wrong. In fact, if 
they wanted to reduce abortions, they would increase funding for title 
X. Why? Because title X services prevent nearly 1 million unintended 
pregnancies each year, almost half of which would otherwise end in 
abortion.
  If we want to get serious about cutting Federal spending and reducing 
abortions, a good start would be investing in title X, not eliminating 
it, which is exactly what this amendment will do. Of course, in 
addition to reducing unintended pregnancies and saving taxpayers' 
money, family planning providers, like Planned Parenthood, provide 
essential life-saving and preventative care.
  In 2009, title X providers performed 2.3 million breast exams, 2.2 
million Pap tests, over 6 million tests for STIs, and close to 1 
million HIV tests. For six out of 10 women who receive care from 
women's health centers, this is their only source of health care. 
Eliminating all funds for family planning would cut millions of women 
off from their primary and, in many cases, their only source of health 
care.
  To the millions of women out there who want comprehensive 
reproductive health care: this is what they think of you.
  They think that women should not have access to basic reproductive 
health care, including birth control. Recent legislation revealed that 
they think you shouldn't be able to access care even if you are a 
victim of rape or incest.

                              {time}  2110

  This is what they think of you.
  All these bills reveal the true mindset of the opponents of choice: 
women are not capable of making their own decisions about their own 
health and their own lives.
  These cuts to family planning programs would have a devastating 
impact in my community. Ten Planned Parenthood health centers in 
Illinois that provide primary and preventive care, including flu 
vaccines, diabetes screening, and cholesterol screening would all be 
forced to close. This would affect approximately 30,000 low-income 
patients and eliminate the jobs of 200 health center workers. Not 
exactly the kind of job-stimulating legislation we should be focusing 
on.
  The conversation we're having today is not about choice, but choices. 
With family planning, we can reduce abortions and save the Federal 
Government money; without, we only pretend to do either. With family 
planning we can embrace educating and providing health care to women; 
without, we abandon women when they need care the most. With family 
planning, we can empower the women of America; without, we undermine 
them.
  We have the choice. And we must choose to stand up to these attacks 
and fight back against the mistruths because the health, well-being, 
and lives of millions of women and their families are at stake.
  This amendment is a strike against these wrongheaded cuts to family 
planning. I encourage my colleagues to restore funding to title X 
family planning programs and vote ``yes'' on Mrs. Lowey's amendment.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this 
continuing resolution because it ignores the needs of America's 
families and does nothing to create jobs, strengthen the middle class, 
or effectively lower the deficit.
  The $1.3 billion cut to community health centers is astounding. In my 
district alone, if these cuts are enacted, over 112,000 individuals 
will suffer a significant loss in primary health services, and they 
will be forced to use costly hospital emergency care. Nationally, these 
cuts mean health centers will be unable to serve 11 million patients 
over the next year. It means 127 new health centers in underserved 
districts will lose their funds. And it means the loss of thousands of 
health care jobs.
  Also on the chopping block is the title X program, which provides 
over 8,000 men and women in my district

[[Page 2159]]

with reproductive health care and cancer screening. Nationally, the 
$317 million cut to title X will force many clinics to close, 
eliminating another primary care safety net for 5 million men and 
women.
  Also unbelievable is the $210 million in proposed cuts to the 
Maternal and Child Health Block Grant program. This cut will devastate 
primary and preventive health services in California for an estimated 
2.6 million pregnant women, infants, and special needs children.
  The cuts also endanger other critical programs such as California's 
newborn screening program, which last year tested almost 550,000 
newborns for treatable genetic and metabolic diseases, which if 
undetected could have become painful and life threatening. On the 
national level, these cuts in MCH grants will reduce or eliminate 
prenatal health services for 2 million women and primary health care 
for more than 17 million children. In a country that ranks far behind 
almost all other developed nations in maternal and infant outcomes, we 
can ill-afford to slash funding for the only Federal program that 
focuses solely on improving the health of mothers and their babies.
  Madam Chair, this bill is a Trojan horse that pretends to address our 
Nation's deficit crisis at the expense of the most vulnerable among us. 
This bill is not worthy of this House, for it fails to honor the true 
priorities and values of the American people, and I urge my colleagues 
to join me in rejecting this irresponsible resolution.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Chair, I rise to speak in strong support of the 
Lowey amendment reinstating the funding for the title X program, which 
supports family planning services for all of our constituents. While we 
all agree on the need to reduce spending, it is just bad policy to 
eliminate a proven, successful program that saves the taxpayer money 
and provides critical health care services for our mothers, our 
sisters, our friends. This is bad policy.
  The title X program, the only Federal program devoted to family 
planning, is the core of the public effort to ensure that all women, 
regardless of income, have the knowledge and health care they need to 
plan for their families. Its flexible grant funds not only help pay for 
direct client services but also help to ensure that State and local 
governments and nonprofit organizations across the country can place 
safety net clinics in the communities that need them the most. These 
clinics are the primary source of health care for millions of low-
income American women.
  By helping women and couples plan and space their pregnancies, family 
planning services have led to healthier mothers and children and have 
been instrumental in the long struggle for women's equality in 
education, the workforce, and society.
  In light of the economic downturn, the freedom that the title X 
program has given to women in the workforce is particularly important. 
But this program hasn't just been successful for the over 4\1/2\ 
million Americans who use it every year. It has been successful for the 
American taxpayer, as every dollar spent on this program saves our 
Nation nearly $4 in return.
  In light of the important role that family planning has played in 
health care and society, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
has called family planning one of the top 10 greatest public health 
achievements of the 20th century, alongside other critical 
breakthroughs like vaccinations and the campaigns against smoking.
  Over 40 years ago, title X family planning funding was enacted on a 
unanimous vote in the Senate and by an overwhelming majority in the 
House. When signed into law, then-President Richard Nixon said it 
fulfilled a promise that ``no American woman should be denied access to 
family planning assistance because of her economic condition.''
  How far we have come from that time to this day, when we have the 
research to prove that a program works, and yet the House Republican 
leadership has recklessly decided to cut it completely. Eliminating 
title X now would be a devastating blow to the health, the security, 
and the dreams of millions of American women and their families, 
denying 5 million women preventive care, including annual exams, 
lifesaving cancer screenings, contraceptive services, and testing and 
treatment for sexually transmitted infection.
  If Members of Congress really want to reduce our Federal deficit, we 
would double funding for family planning, which studies have shown 
could save the taxpayers nearly $2 billion per year. And yet, for some 
reason, my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to believe that 
cutting this program, defunding a program that actually saves Americans 
money and improves the health, improves the health of millions of 
Americans, that somehow this is a good idea.
  For those Members who oppose title X funding, I ask you: How do you 
plan to ensure that the women in your district and your State have 
access to lifesaving prevention services? This sham of a Republican 
omnibus spending bill contains no answers to these questions, just 
broken promises for the American people.
  Let's be clear. A vote against title X is a vote for unintended 
pregnancies. A vote against title X is a vote for the spread of 
sexually transmitted diseases and HIV. A vote against title X is a vote 
for increased rate of cervical cancer and breast cancer if caught late 
or if at all. And a vote against title X is a vote for increased 
abortion rates.
  While I would like to think of this as an oversight, it is not the 
first attack to women's access to health care that has been seen in the 
112th Congress. Combined with the mean-spirited bills moving through 
House committees that reopen the culture wars, it is obvious that this 
extreme and reckless proposal by the Republican majority to defund 
title X clinics is just the next step in an all-out Republican assault 
on women's health.
  This Congress should be focused on creating jobs for the millions of 
moms working to put food on the table, not attacking their rights and 
their health.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Lowey amendment to add some 
common sense to this omnibus spending bill.

                              {time}  2120

  Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, first let me just say, I am shocked and 
appalled at the comment yesterday by the Speaker when he said ``so be 
it'' in response to the likely job losses that will occur as a result 
of this continuing resolution.
  An independent analysis by the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute 
indicates that this bill will result in the direct loss, mind you, of 
800,000 private and public sector jobs. Instead of doing everything we 
can do to halt the loss of jobs and put people back to work, this bill 
takes the wrong approach, putting our economy and our country back on 
the path to recession.
  For every job opening in this country, we have 4.7 unemployed people 
who are looking for work. Why would we want to add to their numbers? 
``So be it'' cannot and should not be our response to this economic 
crisis, not with a 9 percent unemployment rate and over 15 percent in 
communities of color, and record layoffs and furloughs at the State 
level, and especially not when Republicans have the temerity to demand 
tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires paid for through borrowed 
money. This is just wrong, and it's immoral.
  As a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education, I am in strong opposition to these 
cruel cuts. Budgets are moral documents, and they are a reflection of 
who we are and what we value. This spending bill makes it clear that 
the poor, the young, women, the elderly, teachers, firefighters, cops, 
and the communities

[[Page 2160]]

that they protect and serve are not valued. Make no mistake, this bill 
will harm the most vulnerable among us, and it represents a wrongheaded 
approach to reducing the deficit or expanding job growth in our 
country.
  Madam Chair, I am especially concerned about the proposed cuts to 
education and training programs. Among the range of cuts include 
Workforce Investment Act programs, which last year helped over 8.4 
million job seekers find jobs. They got additional education and job 
training support. This is being cut.
  All told, when counting rescissions of prior funding, elimination of 
the requested FY11 funding, and the advanced funding needed to run 
these employment and training programs, they will experience nearly a 
$5 billion cut. Republican cuts in job training will only prolong the 
recession, keep unemployment high, and keep more Americans collecting 
unemployment instead of training and getting ready for our 21st century 
job opportunities.
  How can we justify cutting job training programs in the middle of an 
economic crisis? How will my Republican colleagues respond to the 
unemployed in their communities who come to them and ask them for help? 
Will they just say ``so be it''?
  Pell Grants. Pell Grants provide vital funds for students who wish to 
attend 2- and 4-year colleges but who need help to pay their expenses. 
In my district alone, there are 16 institutions that provide Pell 
Grants to over 18,000 recipients. This proposal would cut Pell Grants 
by $845, making college less affordable and accessible for low- and 
moderate-income students. More than 8 million students benefit from 
Pell Grants, and many would be hurt by this cut, especially as schools 
are raising tuition fees to meet rising costs and to deal with tighter 
budgets.
  The bill also entirely eliminates Federal funding for Supplemental 
Educational Opportunity Grants, which colleges and universities use to 
assist undergraduates who have the greatest financial need. That 
program assisted 1.3 million college students last year.
  Head Start, under this proposal, is cut by nearly $1.1 billion. This 
will effectively knock out 200,000 children, mind you, in Republican 
and Democratic districts from participating in this critical early 
education program. This helps provide health, nutrition, and supportive 
services to prepare our children for school.
  The Job Corps program, this program is cut by $891 million, which 
will result in 21,384 jobs lost in communities in every State, the 
majority of which are in the private sector. There will be $1.7 billion 
lost in economic activity as a result of this. And 36,000 at-risk young 
people will be turned away from Job Corps, costing the government and 
the economy as much as $17 billion over the course of their lifetimes. 
Additionally, the cuts will guarantee the closure, mind you, of 75 Job 
Corps centers across the Nation in your districts and in our districts. 
Slashing one of the most effective, accountable, and market-driven 
solutions for millions of youth who leave our schools unprepared is 
really the wrong move at the wrong time.
  The majority has stated that they want to cut the deficit, but, in 
effect, they are cutting the social safety net lifeline for those who 
need it the most. This CR leads us down a path that will result in 
hopelessness, joblessness, and desperation, and it destroys the future 
for our young people.
  I urge my colleagues to meet the challenge before us and reverse the 
potential harm that will be inevitable if this bill is enacted.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, let me thank the former chair 
of the Health and Human Services Subcommittee and now the ranking 
member, Ms. DeLauro, and the manager and the chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  I thought, Madam Chairwoman, that we lived in a country that was a 
land of the free and the brave. We had a sense of pride in the progress 
that America has made, and we have always said we would never want to 
go back, whether it has to do with actual equal rights for women, 
whether it is civil rights and the ability to be empowered to vote. But 
I stand on the floor today with a great deal of disappointment because 
it seems as if, with this continuing resolution, that will literally 
stop in its tracks the functioning of this government. We are really 
going back.
  I rise to support the Lowey amendment because I really can't believe 
that this CR is eliminating $327 million in family planning. It just 
baffles the mind that this critical aspect of health care is now in 
jeopardy. It is now being part of turning the clock back. It is amazing 
that we would not acknowledge the fact that lives of women have been 
saved, lives of young girls have been saved because they've had access 
to family planning.
  As much as we have fought to be able to ensure that around the world 
where indigent women who have lost their lives through the birthing 
process now have access to good medical care--and yes, family 
planning--so that they can have live births, now we come here to the 
soil of the United States, and to take $327 million out of the mouths 
and the hands of women and children--yes, children who can be born 
healthy. Children who are part of the health care process that these 
women are able to secure through the many clinics that are around this 
Nation and in this community.
  I am disappointed in the games that are played with Planned 
Parenthood and to be able to demonize them with false and fraudulent 
tapings and a lot of bogus arguments about the fact that they are not 
in the business of helping people. I am disappointed in using those 
tactics because this is a very serious issue. Mrs. Lowey's amendment 
addresses the seriousness of it because she realizes that if we were to 
go through with the elimination of $327 million, there would be many, 
many lives that are lost.
  We have a Planned Parenthood office in my community. It is mostly 
focusing its attention on educating the community about healthy births, 
about ensuring that teenagers are not alone when decisions have to be 
made, decisions that will allow for the healthy birth or determination 
that is made by their faith leader with their family. They will not be 
left alone. In fact, family planning and Planned Parenthood 
extinguishes, I hope for good, the back alley procedures and, as well, 
the rusty hangers that were used in years past.
  Just a day or two ago, we heard of a horrible abortion clinic that 
saw the lives lost of babies and their mothers because of the dastardly 
tactics that were being used. That is not what we speak of here today. 
We speak of the right of a woman to be able to choose but also to 
accept the good health care of family planning.

                              {time}  2130

  We speak of the rights of the Constitution and the Declaration of 
Independence that really ensure that we all are created equal, with 
certain inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of 
happiness. The Bill of Rights, which allows us due process, is what is 
being denied in this continuing resolution for, as we speak, if that 
money is eliminated, clinics around America will have their doors 
closed. Women will be standing outside, banging on the door and asking 
for good health care.
  So I ask my colleagues to support Congresswoman Lowey's amendment, 
and I truly ask you to not take this Nation back and eliminate $327 
million in family planning, benign but healthy and good health care and 
good policy for America and for America's women and for America's 
children.
  Let us support the Lowey amendment and let us reject the elimination 
of $327 million in family planning and this continuing resolution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. I move to strike the last word, Madam Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chairman, as we continue to work our way out of 
the recession towards the thriving economy that offers economic 
opportunity

[[Page 2161]]

to all Americans, we must out-innovate, out-educate and out-build the 
rest of the world; but the House Republican continuing resolution will 
do none of that. What it accomplishes is nothing but irresponsible 
slashing of necessary programs just so they can go back home and say 
that they cut government spending.
  Now, I'm not sure if our Republican colleagues realize that actions 
have consequences. House Republicans are going too far, and they're 
sacrificing Americans' health, safety and future in the process, all in 
order to protect special interests. And what makes it worse is they are 
offering no real plan to deal with the deficit or create jobs.
  Madam Chairman, American competitiveness depends on our ability to 
innovate and keep America number one. But, instead, this bill holds 
$2.5 billion in cuts to the National Institutes of Health, representing 
a significant setback in cancer and other disease research. We have to 
properly fund the key agencies like NIH that are essential to 
disseminating medical research and assisting in the development of new 
drugs and devices. Declining or stagnant Federal funding for research 
and development has an impact on all sectors of our workforce. And I 
want to use my home State of New Jersey as an example.
  A report that was released last year showed that the pharmaceutical 
and medical technology industries are the leaders in private sector 
capital construction in New Jersey. In fact, in 2008, that meant $1.4 
billion to the State and almost 6,000 jobs for construction alone.
  In addition, there's a new report, ``Research America,'' that notes 
that New Jersey is the third largest R&D employer in the United States 
with more than 211,000 jobs supported by health R&D, including 50,000 
direct jobs in health R&D. The same report shows the economic impact in 
New Jersey is $60 billion.
  And that's why I believe that we must provide R&D incentives, 
additional research grants and more technology funding. These 
investments will provide new jobs, not only in the research sector, but 
in the construction and maintenance of labs and research facilities.
  So, Madam Chairman, the government must be responsible for 
facilitating an environment where Americans can continue to innovate. 
This is what President Obama talked about in his State of the Union 
speech. That is the key to creating new thriving industries that will 
produce millions of good jobs here at home and a better future for the 
next generation.
  If government abandons its role in R&D, we run the real risk of 
squandering many, many opportunities. Oftentimes, government can 
support and advance initial research that is then developed by the 
private sector. Government can plant the seeds, often with modest 
investments relative to the long-term payoffs in new products, new 
discoveries, new jobs, and economic growth.
  Government has limited resources in these tough times, but that 
doesn't mean we abandon our role. In fact, we have a responsibility to 
the future to make wise investments that can lead to so many innovative 
discoveries and so much in economic benefits.
  Now, last Thursday, Speaker Boehner said, ``Everything's on the 
table. We're broke. Let's be honest with ourselves.''
  But the Pentagon, in this CR, gets 99 percent of what they ask for. 
Now, defense spending makes up more than half of our discretionary 
budget. The non-defense discretionary spending in this CR is enduring 
brutal cuts. Why should defense spending remain so high when all this 
non-discretionary spending, including R&D, is cut so severely? It 
simply makes no sense.
  And I would say, Madam Chairman, really this is all about priorities. 
The Republicans clearly have the wrong priorities. They're not making 
investments in the future. They're not creating jobs. They're not 
creating an environment where people can be educated for new jobs and 
be trained for new jobs. They simply have the wrong priorities here 
with their spending cuts.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer my strong support for 
the Lowey amendment, which would restore nearly $318 million in title 
X, and I rise to vehemently oppose the continuing resolution which 
completely eliminates title X funding.
  Title X funding provides low-income women with access to 
contraceptive services; but it also provides coverage for primary care 
services, prevention services, including screenings for breast and 
cervical cancer, STD and HIV testing, screenings for high blood 
pressure, diabetes, anemia, pregnancy testing, health education and 
referral for other services. It has nothing to do with abortion. Title 
X, of course, prohibits recipients from expending these monies for 
abortions.
  Madam Chair, I find this CR particularly troubling because I know 
that the overwhelming majority of title X patients are very, very poor. 
In fact, 70 percent of the these patients have incomes at or below the 
Federal poverty level, meaning that they earn less than $10,830 a year; 
92 percent have incomes at or below 250 percent of the Federal poverty 
level, meaning that they earn less than $27,075 a year.
  Now, you know what? We begrudge these patients Temporary Assistance 
to Needy Families, so that if they would become pregnant and have an 
unintended pregnancy, we would call them welfare queens and begrudge 
them welfare benefits. And these patients, who are disproportionately 
poor, women of color, would not be able to receive the economic support 
they need and, with this cruel continuing resolution, would not be able 
to receive the primary care that they deserve and that they need.
  We talk about the need to have jobs in this tough economic time. How 
can women who have no family planning dollars sustain a job or get a 
job when there are unplanned pregnancies?
  As a co-chair of the Women's Congressional Caucus, I want to take a 
final moment to note that access to family planning services has been 
nothing short of revolutionary for women in the United States. Women's 
ability to control their own reproductive destiny has changed the 
landscape at home, at work, and in the community. It's fundamentally 
altered women's role in society, and researchers tell us that it's 
helped to decrease infant mortality, child mortality, and maternal 
deaths. These are all incredibly worthy goals for women, men and 
families.
  We've heard the cry of those who want our country back. We've heard 
the cries of those who want limited government. We've heard the cries 
of those who want to cut spending.
  Well, I say, we want our bodies back. We want to govern our 
destinies, and we want to cut suspending our choices.
  And so, therefore, I urge all of you to join me in supporting 
Congresswoman Nita Lowey's amendment to restore title X funding.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHU. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. CHU. Madam Chair, I rise to support Mrs. Lowey's amendment to 
restore title X funding.
  At a time when we need to come together around jobs and the economy, 
the Republicans are, instead, focusing on bills attacking women's 
health. The Republican gutting and slashing spending plan isn't about 
Federal funding; it's about undermining women.

                              {time}  2140

  This bill is an unprecedented display of disrespect for American 
women and shows no concern for their health. And all this raises the 
key question: Isn't the Republicans' real goal here just to end women's 
access to birth control?
  Preventing unintended pregnancies and thus the need for abortion 
should be a goal on which both pro-choice and anti-choice lawmakers 
should agree. But the Republicans' anti-women continuing resolution 
includes language

[[Page 2162]]

that dismantles Federal funding for family planning, attacks successful 
organizations that provide critical women's health care, and 
jeopardizes women's access to affordable birth control.
  Now, this is a program that affects real people, and these drastic 
cuts will only hurt American women when they need help paying for these 
basic services the most.
  Title X funding helped Shania, a woman who received care at Planned 
Parenthood in Los Angeles. She learned a terrible lesson when her 
mother broke her hip, was brought to the hospital, and then was 
discovered to have stage 5 cervical cancer, too late for a cure. But 
thanks to Planned Parenthood, her daughter is with us today, because 
after learning about her mother's illness, doctors urged Shania to get 
checked for the same diseases. Unemployed and without health insurance, 
she couldn't afford to go to a regular doctor. Instead, she walked into 
that clinic, which indeed did the testing and found her cervical cancer 
early enough to save her life.
  Title X funding helped Beth, a volunteer soldier in our military who 
put her life on the line for our country. But in the military, they do 
not provide family planning services for our hardworking servicewomen, 
forcing them to look elsewhere for the care they need and deserve. When 
Beth needed help, Planned Parenthood and the title X fund was there for 
her even when the military wasn't, and she was able to get the help she 
needed for birth control.
  This Federal money is a critical health care safety net for women 
around the country. It has helped improve the quality of women's 
health, given women free choice, and saved lives. What will Republicans 
tell Shania when she can no longer get the lifesaving checkups she 
needs? What will they tell Beth when she no longer has access to her 
reproductive choices despite serving her country?
  It is clear that the real Republican agenda is to roll over women's 
health and steal away their rights. This Congress and this bill should 
be about creating jobs, not attacking American women.
  Instead of working on the economy, Republicans are working to limit 
women's choices. Instead of doing the bidding of ideological 
extremists, let's address the true needs of the American people.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


               Amendment No. 111 Offered by Mr. Barletta

  Mr. BARLETTA. Madam Chair, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 321, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert
       ``(reduced by $42,676,000)''.
       Page 293, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert
       ``(increased by $42,676,000)''.

  Mr. REHBERG. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman's point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BARLETTA. Madam Chair, I rise today to voice my concerns with a 
number of items listed in this continuing resolution.
  I understand that the time has come for the government to tighten its 
belt, and I accept the fact that painful decisions must be made in 
order to get our economy on the right track. However, it is my belief 
that we have a responsibility to conduct our due diligence before 
defunding some of our most important programs.
  For my district in Pennsylvania, that includes a thorough examination 
of alternatives to any cuts in clean coal technology research.
  According to the National Mining Association, 52,000 Pennsylvanians 
are dependent on our coal industry for their jobs, jobs that may be put 
in danger without an investment in the future. And as the recent events 
overseas have demonstrated, we no longer have the luxury of time when 
it comes to our energy independence.
  While clean coal research will prepare us for the future, the Low 
Income Home Energy Assistance Program invests in our most vulnerable. 
Last year, LIHEAP provided heat to 545,000 families in our country. And 
with an unemployment rate that's held over 9 percent for 21 consecutive 
months, we must remember that the cuts we debate here today will have a 
drastic effect on families who are already struggling to make ends 
meet.
  The same can be said for the Community Service Employment for Older 
Americans. In 2008, this program helped nearly 90,000 older Americans 
prepare for the next phase of their careers, even assisting in their 
placement in the workforce.
  Seniors constitute 16.5 percent of my district's population, and 
given the current nature of our economy, many of these hardworking men 
and women will be forced to prepare for changes in their future.
  As a former mayor, Madam Chair, I understand how important the 
Community Development Fund is to supporting our local communities. It 
serves as a critical lifeline to towns, cities, and communities that 
are already struggling to pay their most basic bills.
  It also supports revitalization programs in our communities and 
assists communities that have fallen victim to disasters.
  And in a similar vein, State and local law enforcement assistance 
helps to keep our communities and neighborhoods safe. In particular, it 
supports communities that are forced to incarcerate illegal aliens for 
extended periods of time as well as programs that strive to protect our 
borders.
  Madam Chair, I understand that we are broke, that programs such as 
those I have listed here today will be forced to bear the brunt of our 
new economic realities. Yet, I stand here today to reiterate my support 
of these important programs, and to remind my colleagues to remain ever 
cognizant of the fact that our cuts are again both necessary and 
painful.
  I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Hawaii is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. HIRONO. I rise today in strong support of the Lowey amendment and 
in strong opposition to cuts to the title X funds in this continuing 
resolution.
  These cuts are a threat to women's health, as you have heard from so 
many of the previous speakers. For example, these cuts will prevent 
Planned Parenthood from receiving needed Federal funds. Much of the 
cuts in H.R. 1 target the most vulnerable among us, the poor, children, 
young adults, and women.
  We are a diverse country, proud of it, with good people on all sides 
of an issue, including of course the issue of abortion. We know that 
cutting title X funds strikes at a favorite target of the anti-choice 
group, Planned Parenthood.

                              {time}  2150

  Sadly, in pursuing their anti-choice agenda, tens of thousands of 
women in our country will be denied health care services that have 
absolutely nothing to do with abortions. The vast majority of Planned 
Parenthood's medical services are related to contraception, testing and 
treatment for sexually transmitted infections, cancer screening and 
other services, like pregnancy tests and infertility treatments. 
Abortion services comprise only 3 percent of the medical care Planned 
Parenthood provides. Federal law already prohibits title X funds from 
being used for abortion services. It is important to point out that 
there are no known violations of this law.
  I would like to share with this body my views on how Planned 
Parenthood Hawaii has helped women and their families in my State. In 
Hawaii, there are three Planned Parenthood centers: one in Honolulu on 
the Island of Oahu, one in Kahului on the Island of Maui, and one in 
Kailua-Kona on the Island of Hawaii. Together, these three centers 
served over 7,800 patients. They

[[Page 2163]]

provided 2,582 cervical cancer screenings that detected 321 abnormal 
results that required further diagnoses and treatment. These represent 
lives saved. They provided 2,705 breast exams. They conducted 3,346 
tests for chlamydia, the leading cause of preventible infertility, that 
resulted in 172 positive results and follow-up treatment.
  By cutting funding for title X family planning programs, the Planned 
Parenthood clinic in Kailua-Kona would have to close its doors. That 
center is one of the only dedicated sexual and reproductive health 
clinics on that island. The centers in Maui and Oahu would be forced to 
reduce their clinic hours. Cutting title X funds eliminates a safety 
net program that provides family planning services and lifesaving 
preventative care to 3 million Americans every year.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 1, and I join my 
colleague, Mrs. Lowey, in saying to the women of this country, we need 
to take our bodies back.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
H.R. 1, which cuts the heart out of safety net programs which sustain 
and help sustain the most economically challenged and most vulnerable 
individuals and families in our society.
  Of particular concern to me are the maternal and child health 
programs, Community Development Block Grants, cuts to legal assistance 
services, education and training, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program, known as LIHEAP, and others which sustain the most vulnerable, 
the most disadvantaged, the most disjointed, and, in many instances, 
the most helpless and the most hopeless members of our society.
  I am obviously concerned about health services in a real sense, 
because if you have all of these other problems and then you are sick 
on top of it and have no way of taking care of yourself, then you have 
no way of addressing the other needs that you have.
  I have been involved with health services for more than 40 years, and 
I have had a good look at what we call Community Health Centers, which 
have become to me the most effective way of providing quality health 
care to large numbers of low-income people in this country.
  When we talk about cutting over $1 billion to Community Health 
Centers, we are talking about ending funding for 127 new centers in 
underserved areas across the country. It means ending funding of 
Increased Demand for Services, or IDS grants, which have allowed health 
centers to expand to serve 3.3 million new patients in the last year 
and a half.
  These cuts would raise costs in the Medicaid program and overall 
general health care services to the country. As a result, patients 
would lose access to primary care, to a regular doctor, and seek care 
for nonemergency health situations by using hospital emergency rooms, 
which would cost the country billions of dollars and continue to 
increase high-cost health care to our economy.
  If these cuts go through, it would have an additive effect to the 
States that are cutting nearly $90 million in financial support to 
health centers due to their own fiscal crises, therefore leaving health 
centers with no way to continue to serve their existing patients.
  Community Health Centers provide high quality health care and they do 
it cost-effectively and efficiently. In the State of Illinois, in 2008, 
40 of these centers operated over 350 sites, contributed almost $1 
billion to the Illinois economy and directly employed almost 6,000 
individuals. For every 10 people employed by an Illinois health center, 
an additional four jobs were created in their surrounding communities. 
These programs served over 1.1 million patients, nearly 80 percent of 
whom all fell below the Federal poverty level and 30 percent of whom 
had no health insurance at all. Without these cuts, these centers can 
continue to operate and provide services.
  I say let's not be what my mother used to call penny wise and pound 
foolish. It might look like we are saving, but every time we take care 
of one's health, we are making an investment.
  I urge that we reject these cuts.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment that 
Mrs. Lowey presented and in opposition to this continuing resolution, 
which would completely eliminate the national women's health and family 
planning programs known as title X.
  The resolution we are considering would cut care to Americans who 
need it most. Title X funds ensure that millions of low-income and 
uninsured individuals have access to primary health care. For most of 
these individuals, this is the only medical care they receive. Without 
access to this health care, they are at risk of developing serious 
medical conditions. If title X funding is eliminated, it would remove 
the only access point to primary health care for millions of women and 
would increase the health care costs for all Americans.
  Now, some of my colleagues would argue that title X is all about 
abortion. That statement is simply not true. These programs fund 
prevention, provide lifesaving care to millions of women each year, 
cancer detection, care provided, women and families treated with the 
dignity they deserve, and it is family planning.
  I know these claims, and I know the work of these clinics and their 
importance to our society. Maybe the men who put together this 
continuing resolution don't know what these programs do. I assure you, 
I do. Cutting funding to these programs would be devastating for 
women's health, and I strongly oppose efforts to do so.
  These programs prevent an estimated 1 million unintended pregnancies 
each year. For every dollar spent on family planning, several dollars 
are saved, saved, in Medicaid costs. These clinics provide lifesaving 
and preventive care to millions of women. In 2009 alone, providers 
performed millions of Pap tests, millions of breast exams, over 6 
million tests for sexually transmitted infections and nearly 1 million 
HIV tests.
  In my home State of New Jersey, it is estimated that the elimination 
of these programs would cause as many as 40,000 patients to lose their 
access to women's health care. I estimate that without these funds, 14 
Community Health Centers would close their doors.
  We need to take a careful look at whom we hurt by cutting these 
programs. In 2009, these funded health centers provided services to 
over 135,000 patients. Eliminating national family planning programs 
would result in millions of women across the country losing access to 
primary care and preventive health care.

                              {time}  2200

  I can't emphasize that too strongly. Simply put, without these 
programs, more women will experience unintended pregnancies, face 
potentially life-threatening cancer, and other disease--diseases that 
could have been prevented. This is unacceptable.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentlewoman is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman, 
Representative Lowey's, amendment to restore funding for the title X 
family planning program. I also want to convey my strong opposition to 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana prohibiting Planned 
Parenthood from receiving any Federal funds, including any funds for 
cervical or breast cancer screening. These draconian proposals will end 
preventive and primary care for millions of American women--primary 
care services that are for so many women the only medical care they 
receive throughout

[[Page 2164]]

the year. In fact, six in 10 women who access care from a family 
planning center consider it to be their main source of health care.
  What we are seeing here today is nothing less than an attack on 
access to women's health services. The real impact of these cuts is 
that 5 million women across this country will lose access to basic 
primary and preventive care services.
  Let's be clear, Planned Parenthood does offer needed family planning 
services, and they also offer preventive health care services. In 2009, 
in the State of Ohio, Planned Parenthood served 97,574 patients by 
providing primary health services like cervical and breast cancer 
screenings, birth control, along with general services including 
smoking cessation, flu vaccinations, and screening for diabetes and 
anemia. Planned Parenthood in Ohio provided 32,532 cervical cancer 
screenings in 2009. Planned Parenthood in Ohio provided 32,717 breast 
exams in 2009--32,717 women given piece of mind that they are free from 
cancer or put on the path to necessary further treatment for breast 
cancer; 32,717 women given access to preventive care services that each 
and every American woman needs.
  From the cuts to the Women, Infants, and Children program to these 
cuts targeted at women's health care, a pattern is quickly emerging. 
And it's unacceptable. It shows a disregard for women's health and 
safety. Rather than jeopardize the health of women and children across 
our country; rather than cutting heating assistance for those with low 
income; rather than cutting funding for Community Health Centers that 
help our most vulnerable; rather than cutting Community Development 
Block Grant funding that helps with economic development and job 
creation, this Congress can cut things like billions of dollars out of 
oil subsidies that go right to the profits of those oil companies. We 
can require the negotiations of lower drug prices to benefit our 
seniors and the bottom line.
  We as a Congress, rather than focusing on these draconian cuts to 
jeopardize the health of women and children, we should focus on job 
number one, and that is making investments helping Americans get back 
to work. We need to be working to strengthen U.S. manufacturing, 
rebuilding our infrastructure, and stopping the outsourcing of American 
jobs. I urge my colleagues to join us in these efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I think for over an hour we've been 
hearing people say, I rise in support of this amendment, over and over, 
speaker after speaker.
  My parliamentary inquiry is: Is there an amendment before the floor 
right now?
  The Acting CHAIR. No.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I stand strongly in support of 
Congresswoman Lowey and her amendment and title X and its protections 
for women and family. What a shame we're here tonight defending a 
woman's reproductive rights--defending a woman's right to make choices 
that work for her, that work for her family, that work for their 
future. Instead, we should be debating how we can get our economy 
going, how to provide jobs. Instead, we're defending a woman's right to 
control her body, her right to good health care, her right to prevent a 
pregnancy, and her right to end a pregnancy.
  This, my friends, is the 21st century. We are not in the Middle Ages. 
It is time to respect women and to respect their choices. It is past 
time to begin creating jobs here in the United States of America.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1818.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for 
     Children and Families, Payments to States for the Child Care 
     and Development Block Grant'' shall be $2,088,081,000, of 
     which no funds shall be for the Child Care Aware toll-free 
     hotline.
       Sec. 1819. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for 
     Children and Families, Children and Families Services 
     Programs'' shall be $7,796,499,000, of which $405,000,000 
     shall be for making payments under the Community Service 
     Block Grant Act (``CSBG Act''), except that such level shall 
     include $10,000,000 for section 680(a)(3)(B) of the CSBG Act 
     and $6,151,783,000 shall be for making payments under the 
     Head Start Act.
       (b) The fourteenth and fifteenth provisos under the heading 
     ``Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for 
     Children and Families, Children and Families Services 
     Programs'' of division D of Public Law 111-117 shall not 
     apply to funds appropriated by this division.


                 Amendment No. 457 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 293, line 25, insert ``(reduced by $100,000,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.
       Page 294, line 1, insert ``(reduced by $100,000,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.
       Page 359, line 15, insert ``(increased by $100,000,000)'' 
     before the period at the end.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment reduces the Administration 
for Children and Families programs by $100 million, with reductions 
specifically targeting the Community Service Block Grant program. Under 
this amendment, this reduction would be transferred to the savings 
reduction account and would save the taxpayers $100 million. The agency 
has already spent $295 million on this program for fiscal year 2011. 
This amount of money is already out the door, and an authorization 
requiring $10 million to be spent on discretionary activities is 
already out; but this amendment would essentially zero out funding for 
grants for the remainder of the fiscal year.
  The program is administered through the Department of Health and 
Human Services. It provides Federal funds to States, territories, and 
tribes for distribution to local agencies to support a wide range of 
community-based activities. This program, however, has been flagged 
previously for its lack of accountability and oversight for the use of 
taxpayer dollars.
  In 2006, GAO was asked to review the administration of the Community 
Service Block Grant program. GAO indicated in a letter to the Assistant 
Secretary for Children and Families on February 7, 2006, that ``the 
Office of Community Services does not have the policies, procedures, 
and internal controls in place needed to carry out its monitoring 
efforts.''
  Later, GAO writes: ``By sending staff without sufficient expertise in 
financial management on monitoring visits, the Office of Community 
Services failed to ensure that States spend Federal dollars 
appropriately.''
  We have a projected deficit, as we've said many times today. It's 
$1.5 trillion this year alone. Sobering reports say that the national 
debt may soon exceed our annual GDP. Simply put, the Federal Government 
does not have the resources to fund every grant program, particularly 
one that has little accountability over how taxpayer dollars are spent.

                              {time}  2210

  Beyond issues related to oversight, there have been concerns related 
to the effectiveness of taxpayer dollars spent on grants under this 
program.
  In a New York Times article published on February 5, White House 
Office of Management and Budget Director Jacob Lew wrote about the CSBG 
program, stating: ``For the past 30 years, these grants have been 
allocated using a formula that does not consider how good a job the 
recipients are doing.''
  In fact, presumably for this reason, President Obama cut funding for 
the Community Service Block Grant program by 50 percent in his FY 2012 
budget request. Let me say that again: the

[[Page 2165]]

President for the FY 2012 budget has cut this program in half, from 
$700 billion to $350 billion. I suppose it's likely because of these 
problems.
  The President defended this reduction by stating: ``CSBG provides 
funding for the important work of Community Action Agencies, but does 
not hold these agencies accountable for outcomes.''
  On November 2, taxpayers sent a clear message to all of us here to 
spend money more wisely.
  As I mentioned, we are borrowing 40 cents for every dollar we spend. 
So when you have programs we are told by GAO and other groups that 
simply aren't using taxpayer dollars wisely, it behooves us to cut the 
funding. If we don't cut this funding, we will actually be funding this 
program at a greater level than the President is asking for. Let me 
repeat that:
  Unless we do this cut that we are talking about today, we will be 
funding for fiscal year 2011 this program at a greater level than the 
President is requesting for the following year.
  I think that we ought to move now, when we have a deficit of $1.5 
trillion and a debt nearing or over $14 trillion, to save money where 
we can for the taxpayers.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just 
wanted to ask the gentleman a question.
  Has the gentleman given any consideration as to what the impact of 
this Federal cut is on State programs and as to the likelihood that 
States are to follow suit after the enactment of his proposed 
amendment?
  Mr. FLAKE. I think any impact there will be is dwarfed by the impact 
of having a $1.5 trillion deficit and a $14 trillion debt and what 
happens to us as a country if we continue to run that kind of deficit 
and debt.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in strong opposition to the Flake amendment and 
to the Republican cuts of the Community Service Block Grant.
  Mr. Chairman, there isn't any question that Democrats are committed 
to reducing the deficit. We believe we should start by ending the tax 
subsidies and special interest waste. We also must make sure that 
programs are accountable and that we end those that do not work.
  But what we have here is a program that serves as nothing short of a 
lifeline. It provides assistance to our Nation's poorest families, 
families who are trying to meet the most basic of human needs. We have 
the latest Census data, which tells us that more than 43.7 million 
people are living in poverty in the United States. That number is 
growing.
  A striking point is that many in this category are hardworking 
Americans who have, in fact, been making it; yet some may refer to them 
now as the ``new poor.'' In this Great Recession, life has changed very 
quickly for so many American families who have first lost their jobs 
and then lost their homes. The majority of Americans served by this 
program can be described as extremely poor, with incomes below 75 
percent of the Federal poverty threshold. That's $9,735 for a family of 
three. That's the average size: $9,735.
  Is that what we make in this institution here, $9,735? You know what, 
Mr. Chairman? We'd be hard-pressed to find a corner of our Nation that 
doesn't feel the impact of these severe cuts. The service areas of 
Community Action Agencies cover 96 percent of the Nation's counties.
  I just might add that not so long ago this body voted for a tax 
increase for the richest 2 percent of the people in this Nation, 
providing them with $100,000 in tax cuts--the richest 2 percent of the 
people in this country as opposed to people who make $9,735. Now, if we 
really want to be serious about that deficit, let's start with several 
items.
  Let's go to the oil subsidies of $40 billion over 5 years and 
eliminate 10 tax breaks for the oil companies. Let's start there. What 
about ending what they call ``treaty shopping,'' which would be a $7.4 
billion savings over 10 years? Let's shut down the current practice 
that allows multinationals to avoid paying their taxes. I think that's 
a good idea that we ought to implement. That certainly is un-American 
if they're not going to pay their taxes.
  As for other savings, why don't we cut agricultural subsidies in half 
and save almost $8 billion? We can do that. We could save $3 billion a 
year if we ended the licensing agreements in which pharmaceutical 
companies pay competitors to slow the introduction of cheaper generic 
drugs. That raises the cost of health care for all of us. Then we could 
immediately save $450 million and almost $3 billion if we stop spending 
on the alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter.
  It's very interesting. Those total about $61 billion, which is the 
size of the cuts that the other side of this venerable House has 
proposed we cut: K-12 education for the neediest people in this Nation 
and the National Institutes of Health, which provide the opportunity to 
look for groundbreaking discoveries to cure disease.
  One should really be opposed to this amendment for what it would do 
to the most vulnerable people of this Nation. It is effectively a 100 
percent cut. It is again the example of how the Republican resolution 
hits those who can afford it least.
  With 9 percent unemployment in our country, this is not the time to 
be cutting critical services. These are services in local communities 
to help low-income families get on their feet. The issues are child 
care, job training, nutrition. The money goes to nonprofit agencies, to 
the Boys and Girls Club, to Habitat for Humanity, to Feeding America, 
to hundreds of local faith-based churches and synagogues, to the United 
Way, and to Big Brothers and Big Sisters.
  I urge defeat of the Flake amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I 
move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the Community Service Block Grant program 
provides grants and other services to States to combat poverty and to 
increase self-sufficiency. The funding is directed to community 
organizers in poor neighborhoods. The range of services provided 
includes emergency services, housing, health care, food and nutrition, 
economic development, and education.
  States award the funds to Community Action Agencies. I've got several 
of them in my congressional district, which are nonprofit, private and 
public organizations established under the Economic Opportunity Act of 
1964. Today, there are approximately 1,000 Community Action Agencies 
serving the poor in every State.
  Now, I know the gentleman from Arizona is basing part of his cut on 
what is in the President's budget. From my perspective, the President's 
budget is wrong on this subject. To cut this program in half and then 
say we're going to have competitive bidding for the other half is going 
to hurt thousands, if not millions, of poor people in this country. It 
is not the right thing to do. This is shredding the safety net. Then 
this last $100 million, because so much of this money has already been 
spent this year, would take this program down to zero. It would be a 
disaster. All of these agencies would have to close, and the people who 
are the poorest people would not have any place to go to get help.
  So I just think it's despicable that we have finally gotten down to 
where we're going to go after the Community Service Block Grant, which 
helps the poorest people in each of our districts around the country.

[[Page 2166]]



                              {time}  2220

  It's indefensible, it's just not right, and I hope that the gentleman 
from Arizona will reconsider this amendment, and I would hope that the 
committee would reconsider this in conference committee. I don't think 
the other body should in any way embrace this. This is a bad amendment, 
a bad cut, and it's going to hurt people, the poorest people in this 
country.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the Lowey amendment, I rise in strong opposition to the Flake 
amendment, and I want to begin by saying that my friend, Mr. Flake from 
Arizona, is a very nice man. He's a decent man. He's just dead wrong on 
this. He's just wrong, wrong, wrong. Before I get into the specifics of 
the amendment, I want to highlight the deep cuts my friends on the 
other side of the aisle want to make to the accounts in the Labor-
Health and Human Services and Education bill.
  This subcommittee not only funds the Departments of Labor, Health and 
Human Services, and Education, but programs that make vital investments 
in people. That's why the Labor-H bill is often referred to as ``the 
people's bill.'' It provides resources that train people for jobs; 
offers educational opportunities in early, secondary, and higher 
education; and expands social safety net programs to millions of 
Americans that need temporary assistance.
  While some of my colleagues will argue that with our growing budget 
deficit and growing levels of spending that we need to make some cuts--
and we must, by targeting wasteful and unnecessary spending--the 
legislation that has been brought to the floor by my colleagues from 
the other side of the aisle seeks to weaken some of the critical social 
safety nets for the most vulnerable amongst us: for working families, 
for children, for seniors, and for the poor.
  Mr. Chairman, I've been listening to this debate for a couple of 
hours now, and as we get later and later into the night, I'd just like 
to take a moment to remind my friends that these cuts are not just 
about dollar amounts and percentage cuts over the last fiscal year, but 
cuts to real people. I think some of us often forget that. So the way 
this works is the Federal Government cuts these programs. Without 
matching funds available from the Federal Government, States then in 
turn cut the exact same programs, and suddenly, millions of Americans 
wake up without the Federal Government or without the State government 
providing them with any assistance. This isn't just about the Federal 
deficit and the Federal budget. The ramifications of this cut spiral, 
trickle all the way down to the States, and the ramifications for 
States' indebtedness continues to grow.
  Under the Department of Labor, my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle propose a $2.5 billion cut to programs to support job training 
opportunities for dislocated workers, the unemployed, and young 
Americans at a time when the unemployment rate remains at a historic 9 
percent. That's nearly 14 million Americans. By some estimates, this 
number is even higher. This is a 40 percent cut to programs that help 
unemployed people get out of the unemployment office and get their feet 
in the door.
  From Health and Human Services, this legislation cuts $1 billion for 
1,250 community health centers. That does not include the ramifications 
of States that are not likely to fund the exact same health centers and 
even more. These health centers serve nearly 20 million low-income 
individuals by providing access to primary, dental, and preventative 
care.
  The $1.8 billion cut from the Head Start program will threaten jobs 
of thousands of teachers and teachers' aides and will cut off access to 
an estimated 200,000 low-income children across this country.
  And $694 million will be cut for grants to schools that serve 
disadvantaged students. Teachers, tutors, and teachers' aides are 
likely to lose their jobs, and after-school and supplemental programs 
will be cut. And the students that need the help the most will suffer. 
Nearly $558 million will be cut from special education programs that 
serve children with disabilities.
  As the cost of tuition, textbooks, and living expenses continues to 
rise, the 8 million students in community colleges and universities 
that benefit from Pell grants will no longer be able to receive the 
current maximum award of $5,550 per year. My colleagues across the 
aisle believe that $4,705 is adequate.
  I could go on and on, Mr. Chairman, with the detrimental cuts my 
colleagues plan to make to these social safety net programs. But the 
fact is that the legislation in front of us provides cuts to people in 
this country that can least afford it. These devastating cuts to health 
care, to education, to energy assistance, and other programs means the 
most vulnerable Americans will be left to fend for themselves, in the 
midst of the worst economy of our lifetime.
  Mr. Chairman, I recommend my colleagues vote against any amendments 
that further cut any of these vital programs for Americans. I strongly 
urge my colleagues to vote against this irresponsible continuing 
resolution.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. The spending bill that the 
Republicans have introduced is a threat to our economy, a threat to our 
competitiveness, and a threat to America's working families, and with 
this amendment, a threat to America's poor.
  No one is in favor of wasteful spending and outdated government 
regulations that don't work or special spending for the powerful and 
the special interests. Instead of identifying real governmental waste, 
like subsidies to Big Oil and tax cuts to billionaires, the House 
Republicans have decided that all the cuts will fall on the backs of 
working people, on students, and on the poor in this country. The 
universe of cuts will be limited to those parts of our population, the 
most vulnerable parts of our population, those who struggle every day 
to keep their jobs and provide for their families, to hold on to their 
homes, or maybe to catch a break and get a job, or maybe to catch a 
break and have their child be put into Head Start, or to have mental 
health services for a member of their families.
  They deny workers the basic rights and protections on the job, and 
they prevent unemployed Americans from getting job training that will 
give them a leg up in this economy because they zero out these 
programs. Simply put, the Republican spending bill eliminates hundreds 
of thousands of jobs and hundreds of thousands of job opportunities for 
Americans who are seeking to get back into the economy. This bill is 
reckless and irresponsible. The programs that are targeted in this bill 
are a lifeline to the future of our economy.
  These cuts mean over 200,000 young children will lose their spots in 
a Head Start classroom. For the first time, as we celebrate the 100th 
birthday of President Reagan, we destroy Ron and Nancy's favorite 
program. Those children will not be allowed into the Head Start 
classroom, and we know exactly what that means. They will start school 
behind, they will continue behind, and if they graduate, they will 
graduate behind. That's what we cast them into. That's why it's called 
Head Start. These children need a head start. These quarter of a 
million children will not get a head start. They will go to the back of 
the line. It means that parents will have to choose between going to 
work and putting their children in a low-quality child care without an 
option for those Head Start classes.
  It means that 2,400 disadvantaged schools that rely on title I, the 
funding that will provide quality education, will lose the funding for 
teachers and tutors and after-school programs. And again, the most 
vulnerable children, the children who start without that head start, 
the children who are the poorest in our Nation, they will receive

[[Page 2167]]

the least resources available so that they could participate in an 
economy if they can get a good quality education, and have the 
opportunity to achieve it.
  These cut means reduced support for students with disabilities. It 
will leave some 7,000 special education teachers and staff unemployed. 
And the services those students so desperately need--and they can 
prosper when they're given those services in our education programs and 
thrive in regular education programs--they will be denied that 
opportunity.
  And of course, as has already been mentioned, it means that $845 that 
would have been available for the poorest students, middle-income 
students who are starting college, whether it's community or 4-year 
college or it's a proprietary school, that money won't be available for 
them. But mind you, the costs in the community colleges, the costs in 
the public institutions, the 4-year institutions, the proprietary 
schools, they're all going up. These students' resources to pay for 
college are going down, and many of these students do not have the 
ability to replace those resources.
  By eliminating the Corporation for National Community Services, we 
break the great bipartisan compact here that we would join together to 
provide people an opportunity to give back to this Nation, that we 
would organize services to serve our community and to volunteers in our 
community, whether they be senior citizens or whether they be young 
people starting out, and the people could earn an opportunity by 
serving their community to earn a scholarship, and grandparents could 
earn a scholarship to give to their children if they gave back to their 
community and volunteered in their community. Those programs are gone. 
They're eliminated. They're zeroed out in this legislation.

                              {time}  2230

  By eliminating critical job training opportunities offered through 
the Workforce Investment Act, some 200,000 unemployed Americans who 
need these skills to compete in the workplace will be denied their 
services, as will the returning vets from the vets program who use the 
One-Stop services. In April, 3,000 of them will be gone, closed down 
because of the budget cuts here.
  Where will those veterans go? Where will those veterans go that are 
seeking opportunities? Where are we going to take these veterans who 
were harmed, who have suffered in combat, who are recovering from their 
injuries and trying to navigate the employment sector and our economy? 
They can go to a One-Stop shop. They can get special treatment as a 
veteran in that place. They can see the array of opportunities that 
they might have to bring to them. But no, now they can cruise the 
community. They can go from place to place, trying to find and knit 
together the services that are available today in those One-Stop 
centers.
  So this legislation is devastating, devastating to millions of 
Americans. Millions of Americans with the slightest bit of help would 
be able to engage in our economy, be able to engage in our society, and 
be able to prosper for themselves and for their families. Tonight, the 
Republicans foreclose that future. They foreclose that future for 
millions of Americans who will not be able to fight back or hire 
lobbyists.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, for the last 5 weeks or so since the new 
majority has taken over the House, as 15 million people are unemployed 
in this country, as people are losing their homes, losing their 
businesses, the majority has focused like a laser beam on everything 
except job creation for the American people. They have found time to 
dabble in a variety of political issues while ignoring the essential 
purpose for which I believe we were all sent here, which is to foster 
an environment where businesses and entrepreneurs can create jobs for 
this country.
  This week they have changed. They have gone from ignoring the jobs 
problem to making it worse. The legislation that's on the floor tonight 
does reflect a good faith and necessary goal of reducing spending in 
our country. I don't think there is anyone here who would disagree with 
the proposition that continuing to spend more than we take in 
eventually will cause even greater pain and harm to the U.S. economy 
than it has already caused, which is considerable, indeed.
  But all spending cuts are not created equally, and all spending 
decisions don't have the same consequences. The prism through which we 
have to look at spending cuts is whether they are sensible or reckless, 
whether they help to create jobs or destroy jobs. And I would submit, 
ladies and gentlemen of the House, that the legislation before us is 
worsening the very deep economic crisis in our country in three ways.
  First of all, you can't have economic growth if you don't have safe 
streets and a safe country. But the provisions of this bill will lead 
to the layoff of more than 10,000 police officers in cities and towns 
across our country. The provisions of this bill will lead to the 
dismissal or furlough of over 1,000 people whose job it is to check 
containers coming into this country to see if they have dirty bombs or 
chemical weapons in them. A country that isn't safe won't grow.
  Ladies and gentlemen, the other cuts in this bill, let's talk about 
education. A country that can't learn won't grow. But this legislation 
will result in the elimination of 10,000 reading tutors and math 
coaches for the neediest students in this country. It will remove 7,000 
teachers who teach autistic kids, children with a learning disability, 
from classrooms. For the single mom who is struggling to pay her bills, 
raise her children, and go to school, it will raise her tuition by up 
to $825 this year by eliminating the college scholarship on which she 
relies to go to school. A country that doesn't learn doesn't grow, and 
these cuts will lead us into a country that makes it very difficult in 
which to learn.
  And finally, this country is fueled by research and development, 
inventing and creating new products, new cures, new solutions to the 
world's problems. Yet in this bill, in one of the most important areas, 
medical research, the majority has given us an unwelcomed surprise. 
There is a spending cut in excess of $600 million from the National 
Institutes of Health that is described, ladies and gentlemen, as 
further cuts to get to the 2008 levels. I don't know what that means. I 
don't think anyone on the majority side will tell us what that means. 
But I do know this: Thousands of Americans work doing medical research 
through the National Institutes of Health. Millions of Americans depend 
upon the miracles which grow out of that research, and this country's 
economy is stronger when that research continues. That research will be 
cut. The average cancer research grant in this country is about 
$500,000. Looking at the cut that's in here, it appears that over 500 
cancer research grants will go by the wayside.
  A country that isn't safe, a country that isn't learning and 
investing won't grow. This bill means America won't grow. This bill 
should be defeated.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1820. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on 
     Aging, Aging Services Programs'' shall be $1,445,323,000.
       (b) The first proviso under the heading ``Department of 
     Health and Human Services, Administration on Aging, Aging 
     Services Programs'' in division D of Public Law 111-117 shall 
     not apply to funds appropriated by this division.
       (c) None of the funds appropriated by this division for 
     ``Department of Health and

[[Page 2168]]

     Human Services, Administration on Aging, Aging Services 
     Programs'' shall be used to carry out sections 1701 and 1703 
     of the PHS Act (with respect to chronic disease self-
     management activity grants), except that such funds may be 
     used for necessary expenses associated with administering any 
     such grants awarded prior to the date of the enactment of 
     this division.
       Sec. 1821.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the 
     Secretary, General Departmental Management'' shall be 
     $375,938,000: Provided, That amounts included under such 
     heading in division D of Public Law 111-117 shall be applied 
     to funds appropriated by this division by substituting ``$0'' 
     for ``$5,789,000'': Provided further, that the third and 
     seventh provisos under such heading in division D of Public 
     Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this 
     division.
       Sec. 1822.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the 
     Secretary, Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund'' 
     shall be $708,510,000, of which $65,578,000 shall be for 
     expenses necessary to prepare for and respond to an influenza 
     pandemic, none of which shall be available past September 30, 
     2011, and $35,000,000 shall be for expenses necessary for 
     fit-out and other costs related to a competitive lease 
     procurement to renovate or replace the existing headquarters 
     building for Public Health Service agencies and other 
     components of the Department of Health and Human Services: 
     Provided, That in addition, $318,000,000 of the funds 
     transferred to the account under the heading ``Department of 
     Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Public 
     Health and Social Services Emergency Fund'' in Public Law 
     111-117 under the fourth paragraph under such heading may be 
     used to support advanced research and development pursuant to 
     section 319L of the PHS Act and other administrative expenses 
     of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development 
     Authority: Provided further, That no funds shall be made 
     available to the United States Postal Service for the 
     delivery of medical countermeasures.
       Sec. 1823.  Of the funds made available for ``Department of 
     Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Public 
     Health and Social Services Emergency Fund'' in Public Law 
     111-32, $1,397,439,000 is rescinded.
       Sec. 1824. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Education, Education for the Disadvantaged'' 
     shall be $3,994,365,000, of which $3,944,530,000 shall become 
     available on July 1, 2011, and remain available through 
     September 30, 2012 (in addition to the $10,841,176,000 
     previously appropriated under such heading that became 
     available on October 1, 2010), and an additional 
     $10,841,176,000 to remain available through September 30, 
     2012, shall be available on October 1, 2011 for academic year 
     2011-2012: Provided, That of the amounts available for such 
     heading (1) $6,405,844,000 shall be for basic grants under 
     section 1124 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (``ESEA''); (2) $1,365,031,000 shall be for 
     concentration grants under section 1124A of the ESEA; (3) 
     $3,014,000,000 shall be for targeted grants under section 
     1125 of the ESEA; (4) $3,014,000,000 shall be for education 
     finance incentive grants under section 1125A of the ESEA.
       (b) The tenth, eleventh and twelfth provisos under the 
     heading ``Department of Education, Education for the 
     Disadvantaged'' in division D of Public Law 111-117 shall not 
     apply to funds appropriated by this division.
       (c) Of the unobligated balances available for ``Department 
     of Education, Education for the Disadvantaged'' in division D 
     of Public Law 111-117, $189,000,000 is rescinded, to be 
     derived from the amounts specified under such heading for 
     availability under section 1502 of the ESEA.


           Amendment No. 276 Offered by Mrs. McMorris Rodgers

  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 296, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $336,550,000)''.
       Page 296, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $336,550,000)''.
       Page 297, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $500,000,000)''.
       Page 298, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $500,000,000)''.
       Page 299, line 20, after the first and second dollar 
     amounts, insert ``(increased by $557,700,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It 
increases funding for the part B program of IDEA, which provides 
educational grants to States for children with disabilities, by $557 
million, restoring funding for the program to 2010 levels. The 
amendment is fully offset by reducing funding to the Teacher Quality 
State Grant program and the School Improvement Grant program, two 
programs that have received substantial funding increases since 2009.
  Mr. Chairman, 35 years ago Congress recognized that too many special 
needs children were being denied an education and the opportunity to 
maximize their potential and contribution to our society, and 35 years 
ago severely disabled children who were confined to State institutions 
received no education. Special needs students did not attend school. 
They were kept out of classrooms, receiving little education.

                              {time}  2240

  Today, more than 6 million children receive an effective education 
because of IDEA. Special needs children are no longer confined to 
institutions. The number of special needs students who graduate high 
school with a diploma has increased. The number of children who go on 
to enroll in high school has more than tripled since IDEA's enactment. 
And through IDEA, we have increased our Nation's expectations of our 
children. But more can and must be done.
  The McMorris Rodgers/Kline/Sessions/Harper amendment ensures that 
Congress keeps its promise. Too often IDEA is overlooked in our 
education debates. For example, Congress has yet to meet its commitment 
to cover 40 percent of a student's cost. Barriers to reliable research 
prevent effective teaching. Low expectations continue to plague our 
school systems. The reductions to IDEA in H.R. 1 are just another 
example of the challenges that IDEA experiences.
  This amendment reaffirms that there is no greater priority in 
Congress than ensuring all children have access to an appropriate 
education.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Providing a quality education for all students, 
including those with disabilities, should be one of our highest 
priorities. So I agree with the goal of this amendment.
  But, in fact, we are considering a Republican resolution, this 
continuing resolution this evening, and it's the majority party, to 
which the gentlewoman belongs, which cuts IDEA. It cuts special 
education by $558 million. So now we have an amendment that attempts to 
undo the damaging cuts to IDEA, but only by cutting other critical 
education programs. The damage done in this bill cannot be alleviated 
by robbing Peter to pay Paul. That's what this amendment is about.
  Let me just mention to you that--and our colleague spoke about 
special education and what it does. But $558 million is where they come 
from with regard to education for special needs kids. What that means 
is almost 7,000 special education teachers and aides and other staff 
who serve these youngsters would not be there. And it is critical. 
Teachers and staff are critical to the education of these youngsters. 
As a matter of fact, the Federal Government mandates that local school 
districts have to provide this education. And when it was determined 
that that would be the case, it said that the States would do 60 
percent, the Federal Government would do 40 percent.
  What's happened now is we've been at about 17 percent in terms of 
Federal contribution. With the $558 million cut we go down to about 15 
percent.
  I would suggest that if there is such a great urgent need and a great 
burning desire to be able to provide education to special needs 
children, that we do not cut $558 million.
  Now, where does the money come from? As I mentioned, we're talking 
about other critical education programs. School improvement grants. I 
venture to say that everybody is concerned about those schools that are 
failing, that there's got to be student achievement at these schools. 
And that's what the current Federal law requires, that there's 
demonstrable success in student achievement. The funds for the school 
improvement grants are

[[Page 2169]]

appropriated precisely for those schools that fail the test and are 
seeking to implement a strategy for turning around our Nation's lowest-
performing schools. That's where we would take money from in order to 
turn a potentially failing school, to turn around so that they can go 
from the lowest-performing to better-performing schools.
  The other place that my colleague takes funds from is something 
called the Teacher Quality Grants, an approximately $3 billion program 
and a major piece of No Child Left Behind. This provides funds to 
States and school districts to develop and support a high quality 
teacher force.
  Aren't we all about making sure that those people who teach our 
children are qualified to do that? These funds are distributed by 
formula to all States. They are relied upon tremendously to reduce 
class size, to ensure that classroom teachers have the proper training 
and credentials to be effective instructors.
  There isn't a day that goes by that we aren't talking about school 
reform, and at the center of school reform is to develop quality 
teachers. And, in fact, we want to try to link merit pay to quality 
teachers, do everything we can, but my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle would like to take the money for school improvement grants, 
teacher quality grants.
  I suggest to you that what you do, if you are really truly interested 
in educating special needs children, that you decide that a $558 
million cut is just not the right thing to do to children who have 
these special needs and who are mandated by the Federal Government to 
States to get the kind of training that they need to achieve their 
level and realize their dreams and aspirations.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KLINE. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment, and 
I intend to vote for the amendment.
  Mr. KLINE. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, budgeting is about making tough choices. Congress has a 
responsibility to outline a budget the country can afford that sets 
priorities to live within those means. Too often in recent years 
Congress failed in this basic duty. I'm pleased to see us beginning to 
move in a new direction.
  The choice we face today is whether we will begin to uphold our 
commitments or continue to kick the can down the road for another 
debate another time. That's why I'm proud to support this amendment.
  This amendment will move Congress closer to meeting its commitment to 
students with disabilities and help schools, all schools across the 
Nation. It adds to our effort to set the right priorities.
  In 1971, a landmark decision was handed down by a Federal judge that 
ruled the U.S. Constitution prohibits schools from denying access to 
education based solely on a child's disabilities. While this 
represented the judgment of one court, states soon followed.
  Four years later Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped 
Children Act. That law, now known as the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act, was designed to help states meet their obligation to 
provide a quality education to students with disabilities. It is a law 
that has been improved over the years, most recently, in 2004.
  We've worked to strengthen the law's focus on academic achievement, 
empowered parents to take greater responsibility for the direction of 
their child's education, and helped to improve the critical 
relationship between local school leaders and the parents and students 
they serve. Despite our efforts over the years, more work remains to 
strengthen the law to ensure students with disabilities receive the 
education they need. That's why we're here today.
  Over the past 35 years, while states have worked to follow the letter 
of the law and serve these students, the Federal Government has failed 
to deliver on its promise to fund 40 percent of the additional costs of 
educating students with disabilities. In fact, Mr. Chairman, we've 
never funded 20 percent. We haven't made it halfway.
  This amendment reallocates resources at the Department of Education 
to improve our commitment to meet this important need. It makes tough 
choices we were sent here to make. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this 
amendment. The suggestion has been made by the chairman of my committee 
that somehow if you vote for this amendment you're increasing the 
government's commitment to fully fund IDEA. No you're not. You're 
simply restoring the cut that the Republican caucus already made a 
decision about, and that was to cut $558 million. That would be 
admirable if you restored the cut.
  But when you decide therefore to restore the cut, you're going to now 
have to make additional cuts, and those additional cuts will come out 
of the most difficult, hard-pressed failing schools in our country, 
many with increased populations of children with disabilities. Those 
will be the schools that we will target.

                              {time}  2250

  We will target those schools in the poorest neighborhoods with the 
poorest records where now, for the first time we have a proposal made, 
carried out by the Governors, by the local school districts to turn 
those schools around and to provide the quality education that those 
children are entitled to so they can take advantage of the 
opportunities that America presents.
  But now money for those schools is going to be taken away on the 
theory that somehow you are doing a favor for students with 
disabilities. Don't do them such a favor. I don't think they would 
appreciate that you are taking the money from their poorest neighbors.
  And then, on top of that, you are going to take the funds that we are 
speaking to. And you have all given the speeches, you have all told 
people, the most important thing outside of the family is the teacher. 
Well, this is the funding by which we have prepared teachers to be 
special education teachers, to be title I teachers, to teach math, to 
teach science. And now we're going to take that money in the name of 
somehow that this is a restorative amendment that will be good for 
IDEA.
  Let us understand something. When we were doing No Child Left Behind, 
we circulated a petition signed by Republicans and Democrats. We had 
over 300 people sign that and said let's go for full funding. When we 
offered that amendment in the conference committee, the Republican 
Members voted it down. You signed the petition. You just didn't have 
the courage to stand up and put the funding into play, and you have 
been screwing around with this program ever since. You have tried to 
use funding for IDEA to batter some other portion of the education 
community. Little incremental parts were offered year after year, but 
it always came out of the hide of the less fortunate. You ought to stop 
it. You ought to stop it.
  Poor children need access to high-quality education and students with 
disabilities need access to high-quality education. The kind of 
barbaric attitude that is being carried out here in terms of playing 
these two populations off against one another is simply outrageous. 
It's unfair to the students with disabilities because it is being done 
in their name, and we know how desperate they and their families are 
for education and for the resources to carry out that education. And in 
their name, we are stripping the resources from some of the poorest 
children, and also some of the poorest children with disabilities we're 
stripping the resources for them. That doesn't sound

[[Page 2170]]

like a win-win. That doesn't sound like a plus for disabilities.
  I have been at this a long time. I had the honor of writing this 
legislation with my colleagues back in 1975, 1976, and it's an honor 
and I have defended it my whole life and it's changed people's lives. 
And the nicest thing that has ever been said to me in public life is 
when a parent says, But for that law, my child would have never had an 
education.
  But for that law. But I don't think they would have thought that we 
are now trading their child's education for somebody to deny another 
student an education. That's not the game that they wanted to play.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would remind Members that they must 
address their remarks to the Chair and not to others in the second 
person.
  Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. I thank the chairman for recognizing me. 
And I have great respect for my colleague from California and all the 
hard work that he has done now for generations, practically on this 
issue.
  I would point out that from the late seventies through all of the 
eighties, special education was funded at 1, 2, 3, 4 percent. And it 
wasn't until 1995, 1996, 1997--actually '96, '97, '98, '99, into the 
2000s that funding for special education began to increase 
significantly under the Republican-controlled Congress.
  President Clinton's own Education Secretary said on a number of 
different occasions that full funding of special education had to take 
a second place to the new programs that the administration was offering 
at the time, which was school construction, school improvement, and 
these other programs that my friend, the maker of the amendment, was 
proposing to reduce in order to fund special education.
  I have felt for many years that IDEA funding should be the top 
priority for education funding in the Congress, and I am pleased that 
we have this amendment that will restore funding to the same level that 
it was in fiscal year 2010. I would certainly like to have it higher 
than that, but under the circumstances I believe that this is a good 
and justifiable improvement. It is especially important and it is 
different from SIP and teacher quality grants because we make the 
rules, when it comes to special education, here at the Federal level, 
and the school districts put out their individual service plans for 
students, which they have to pay for. So without this amendment and 
with a cut in funding for special education, it is a direct dollar-for-
dollar cost shift to every school district in America.
  So this is an amendment that is good. It should be bipartisan, and we 
should all support its passage so that we can get special education 
funding back to FY10 levels.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington 
will be postponed.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I offer this motion to speak out against the 
egregious cuts that are being addressed here to public education 
contained in this irresponsible Republican spending bill.
  This spending bill cuts over $1.25 billion in education funding that 
goes directly to States and school districts to support educating 
disadvantaged students and special education students. Now is not the 
time to choke off funding to school districts when stimulus money is 
eroding and when States are cutting their own budgets. I fear we are 
leaving schools and our Nation's most vulnerable students behind.
  These sections of the irresponsible Republican spending plan 
represent a nearly 5 percent cut in aid to school districts. For title 
I funding that supports school budgets and teacher jobs in low-income 
school districts, this means a $693.5 million cut. For Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act, the IDEA Act, special education funding 
that supports school districts educating children with special needs 
and disabilities, this means a $557.7 million cut.
  Title I funding has helped school districts with high poverty levels 
meet State education standards and ensure equal access to quality 
education for all of their students. More than 50,000 public schools 
around this Nation depend on these Federal dollars to maintain their 
educational services.
  This cut to title I funding alone would affect 2,400 schools that 
serve nearly 1 million disadvantaged students. These schools would lose 
funding for teachers, for tutors, and for after-school programs. It 
would mean that nearly 10,000 teachers and aides could lose their jobs. 
Children could see larger class sizes. And, yes, access to quality 
education would again be threatened.
  Not only does this bill cut funding for education for low-income 
children, but it institutes painful cuts to special education programs 
funded with the IDEA dollars.
  For 35 years, IDEA has supported special education, guaranteeing 
students with disabilities the right to a free, appropriate public 
education. Millions of students with disabilities have been able to go 
to public schools because of the IDEA funding school districts receive, 
allowing them to provide an individualized education for children with 
those special needs. This bill cuts over one-half billion dollars out 
of special education funding to school districts. Cuts of this 
proportion could force States and school districts to lay off almost 
7,000 special education teachers and aides and other staff serving 
children with disabilities.
  Just last week, I met with members of the New York State School Board 
Association who advocated for full funding for title I and especially 
for IDEA. They stressed the fact that special education funding has 
never been fully funded to the amount that was originally promised to 
our schools. These cuts are giant steps backwards after several years 
of quality investments in title I and IDEA funding.
  Furthermore, these cuts would come at a time when States across this 
country are also slashing education funding. These cuts come at a time 
when supplemental stimulus aid is drying up. Cuts mean that school 
districts in local communities will have to make up the difference, 
potentially with teacher layoffs, larger class sizes, reduced programs, 
and higher--higher--property taxes. This is not responsible 
policymaking, especially while our economy is still in recovery.
  The majority in this House is lauding the fact that this bill 
represents the largest spending cut in the history of our country. If 
they want to cut funding to satisfy their base, fine, but I will not 
stand for cutting education funding. I will not support budget cuts 
balanced on the backs of our Nation's students, our youngest citizens, 
and, indeed, our future.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2300

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I rise in strong support of the amendment to add funding back to 
title X from my colleagues Congresswoman Lowey and Congresswoman 
DeLauro, who have always been fierce advocates for women's health, and 
I am thrilled to join them in this important fight.
  Since 1970, the title X family planning program has been a key 
component of our Nation's health care infrastructure and an essential 
element in

[[Page 2171]]

the winning strategy to reduce unintended pregnancies. Efforts to cut 
the title X program would take away funding from essential women's 
health care providers like Planned Parenthood.
  Today, title X serves over 5 million low-income individuals every 
year. In every State, women and men rely on title X for basic primary 
and preventative health care, including annual exams, lifesaving cancer 
screenings, contraception, and testing and treatment for sexually 
transmitted diseases. In fact, in 2009 alone, title X providers 
performed 2.2 million Pap tests, 2.3 million breast exams, and over 6 
million tests for sexually transmitted diseases, including nearly 1 
million HIV tests. And preventative care isn't limited to cancer 
screenings and education on how to avoid STDs.
  If Republicans truly wanted to reduce abortions in this country, they 
would vote for this amendment. Indeed, title X actually reduces the 
number of abortions. Title X services help to prevent nearly 1 million 
unintended pregnancies each year, almost half of which would otherwise 
end in abortion. So we can say for certain that title X funds play a 
vital role in helping to reduce the number of abortions in our Nation, 
working towards the goal of making abortions safe, legal, and rare.
  But it goes further. The title X programs through providers like 
Planned Parenthood provide vital family planning services which help 
improve the life of the mother and the child. It has been proven time 
and again that family planning keeps women and children healthy. 
Studies have shown that when women have better access to family 
planning, it leads to healthier outcomes for both mother and child.
  When women plan their pregnancies, they are more likely to seek 
prenatal care, improving their own health and the health of their 
children. In fact, access to family planning is directly linked to 
declines in maternal and infant mortality rates.
  Eliminating the national family planning program will result in 
millions of women across the country losing access to basic primary and 
preventative health care and to the providers that offer these 
services. Without title X, more women will experience unintended 
pregnancies and face potentially life-threatening cancer and other 
diseases that could have been prevented.
  In recent weeks, Republicans in this Congress have produced some of 
the most anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-family bills that we have ever 
seen, trying to redefine rape, raising taxes on women who have private 
insurance with comprehensive health care coverage, telling women who 
need our help the most that they are on their own.
  But that just didn't just go far enough for them. Republican 
proposals to cut title X funding and completely shut down Planned 
Parenthood, where millions of women receive their only health care, is 
one of the most spiteful, egregious moves we have ever seen.
  It is truly mind-boggling that the same Members who purport to be 
anti-choice can turn around and say in the same breath that they want 
to strike all Federal family planning funding. So now they don't just 
want to make abortions illegal, they also want to throw a huge obstacle 
in the path of those who want to prevent themselves from ending up in a 
situation where they might need one. This helps no one. It doesn't help 
women, it doesn't help families, and it certainly doesn't help reduce 
our deficit. That is because title X actually saves taxpayer dollars.
  Since many of the patients served by title X are on Medicaid, 
preventive care like cancer screenings and contraceptive counseling 
actually means fewer costs to the taxpayer in the long run. Indeed, for 
every public dollar invested in family planning, $3.74 is saved in 
Medicaid-related costs. That is savings to both Federal and State 
governments.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support this amendment of my good friends 
that would reinstate title X funding in the continuing resolution. The 
decision by Republicans to defund title X was not only reckless, but 
thoroughly anti-woman, anti-child, and anti-taxpayer.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help correct a 
massive injustice against American women and families.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1825. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Education, School Improvement Programs'' 
     shall be $3,066,967,000, of which $2,978,515,000 shall become 
     available on July 1, 2011, and remain available through 
     September 30, 2012 (in addition to the $1,681,441,000 
     previously appropriated under such heading that became 
     available on October 1, 2010), and an additional 
     $1,681,441,000, to remain available through September 30, 
     2012, shall be available on October 1, 2011 for academic year 
     2011-2012: Provided, That of the amounts available for such 
     heading (1) $7,463,000 shall be available to carry out 
     subpart 6 of part D of title V of the ESEA; and (2) no funds 
     shall be available for activities authorized under part B of 
     title II, part D of title II, subpart 9 of part D of title V, 
     part B of title VII, or part C of title VII of the ESEA, or 
     part Z of title VIII of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
       (b) The first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, 
     twelfth and thirteenth provisos under the heading 
     ``Department of Education, School Improvement Programs'' in 
     division D of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated by this division.


            Amendment No. 532 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows.

       Page 298, line 12, insert, ``or'' after ``title II,''.
       Page 298, beginning on line 12, strike ``, part B of title 
     VII, or part C of title VII''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will strike the 
language in H.R. 1 that prohibits the Department of Education from 
funding the Alaskan Native Education Equity Act and the Native Hawaiian 
Education Program. The amendment will not add money to the Department 
of Education budget but will allow the department to fund those 
programs as they see a need.
  I yield at this time to the good lady from Hawaii for a very short 
statement.
  Ms. HIRONO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong support of this amendment introduced by my 
colleague, Congressman Don Young, to support Alaska Native and Native 
Hawaiian education. This amendment makes these worthwhile programs 
eligible for these education funds.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of the amendment introduced 
by my colleague Congressman Don Young.
  I appreciate the opportunity to work with him on this amendment. For 
many years, Congressman Young has been a leader on issues of importance 
to the indigenous, aboriginal peoples of the United States. He 
understands that we have a special trust responsibility to American 
Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. And while we sit on 
different sides of the aisle, the bond between the native peoples of 
Alaska and Hawaii transcends political party.
  The Native Hawaiian Education Act was enacted in 1988 and was last 
reauthorized in 2002 as a part of the No Child Left Behind Act. Native 
Hawaiians have historically experienced educational risk factors, such 
as high rates of poverty and low academic achievement. The modest 
appropriations provided under the Native Hawaiian Education Act have 
helped to improve educational opportunities for Native Hawaiian 
children and remain necessary in reversing low achievement trends.
  One of the successes of the program has been the flourishing of the 
Hawaiian language. Following the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 
1893, use of the Hawaiian language in public classrooms was banned. 
This decline in the use of the language paralleled declines in other 
aspects of a once vibrant culture and community. We know that loss of 
one's language is part and parcel of the loss of one's culture. Like 
all too many native languages, Hawaiian was on the brink of extinction. 
It was only in 1986 that the ban on Hawaiian language in schools was 
removed. Now, with funds from the Native Hawaiian Education Act, 
Hawaiian language is taught through immersion schools, beginning in 
kindergarten and continuing through high school.

[[Page 2172]]

  We now have a growing cadre of young people who are fluent in the 
Hawaiian language--thanks in great part to the existence of the Native 
Hawaiian Education Program. Several tribes have looked to the success 
of the Hawaiian language program as a model for how they can ensure the 
survival of their language.
  I met with a student named Kuulei last week. She grew up in a 
Hawaiian homestead community where attending college was not thought 
possible. She attended a Native Hawaiian immersion school and through 
hard work and perseverance is now a student at the University of Hawaii 
at Hilo. After graduation, she plans to become a teacher so she can 
inspire the next generation of Native Hawaiian students.
  The school that Kuulei attends, the University of Hawaii at Hilo is 
home to the Ka Haka Ula O Keelikolani College of Hawaiian Language. In 
December 2010, the College awarded its first two doctorates in Hawaiian 
and Indigenous Language and Culture Revitalization. The honors went to 
Katarina Edmonds, a Maori educator from New Zealand, and Kauanoe 
Kamana, the first of Native Hawaiian ancestry to receive a Ph.D. in 
Hawaiian Language from UH Hilo.
  The amendment before your today does not increase funding for Alaska 
Native or Native Hawaiian education programs. All this amendment does 
is make these worthwhile and successful programs eligible for funds 
from the Department of Education School Improvement account.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mahalo nui loa (thank 
you very much).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote yes 
on the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the current definition of 
an earmark as defined by this body, the two programs that the gentleman 
is seeking to restore are both earmarks.
  Alaskan native education and native Hawaiian education programs are 
worthy programs, there is no doubt in my mind, and I believe the 
overall purpose of both is to ensure that the unique educational needs 
of Alaskan and Hawaiian natives are met. Clearly we all want the same 
for our constituents. But I think we have to be clear about what these 
programs are. They are earmarks with a pricetag that approaches $70 
million.
  Now, this majority has been very proud of their policy to ban all 
earmarks. If I might, I would like to just read from the comments of 
the chair of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Rogers, in his summary 
for the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution.
  ``The continuing resolution includes no earmark funding and 
eliminates all previous earmark funding from fiscal year 2010, saving 
the taxpayers approximately $8.5 billion. In addition, the bill 
includes language specifically negating any and all earmarks as defined 
by House rules.''
  Again, as I say, this majority has been very, very proud of their 
policy to ban all earmarks. That is why, really, the decision by my 
Republican colleague from Alaska is therefore hard to understand, and 
the support that the majority is providing for this amendment is hard 
to understand. But I think it is clear evidence that the status quo 
remains when it comes to special favors and when it comes to special 
interests.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Montana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. REHBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I am deeply disappointed in the lady from 
Connecticut. This is a program that has been in existence since 1994, 
and you voted for it every time. This is not an earmark. This is an 
existing program. And I've heard you rail all night about restoring 
money, which are all earmarks. You're dead wrong.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, doesn't the gentleman have to address the 
Chair?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Well, all right. I'll address the Chair, but 
I'll look over there.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would remind all Members to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I am going to say respectfully, this is an 
existing program, and the reason it was started is because Alaskan 
natives and the Hawaiian natives do not receive money from the BIA. It 
was started to recognize an inequity of those people that live in both 
of our States. It is not a new program, and this language as written is 
at the discretion of the Department as they see a need.
  Like I say, I thought we were going to start a little bit of a 
bipartisan effort on this side, and I don't see it when those people 
will take away from some of the most impoverished people who have not 
had that opportunity.
  So I am urging my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. And I 
say to those that oppose it, shame on you. I have heard the bleeding 
hearts all night, and it deeply disturbs me that they would say this is 
something different when it is an existing program.

                              {time}  2310

  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished ranking member.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my colleague and friend, I might 
add, and my friends here, that this in fact is in the same category of 
a program as Teach for America, the National Writing Project, and other 
projects, just to name a couple, that have been designated by the 
majority as earmarks. This is the same category of programs. We cannot 
be talking about a series of programs on the one hand which are 
categorized as earmarks and then the other the same, in the same 
breath, then say these, because they are of specific interest to me or 
anyone else, that in fact then they are not.
  If the majority is going to be true to its principle--and it has been 
a very, very defined principle. It's one which I quoted specifically 
the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who made a special point 
of letting not only us but the country know that earmarks were not 
going to be a part of this continuing resolution. I did not say that. I 
have not stood here and made a claim that the problem with spending in 
this country is about earmarks and they should all be gone.
  Now you either have to define the earmarks, stick to your definition 
and your principle, or don't. And then let's talk about Teach for 
America, the Writing Project, and the others that have been categorized 
as earmarks. Let's have a level playing field.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by my colleagues Congressman Don Young and Congresswoman Mazie 
Hirono.
  This amendment removes the current language in H.R. 1 that prohibits 
the Department of Education from funding the Alaska Native Education 
Equity Act and the Native Hawaiian Education Program. No additional 
funds are added to the underlying bill.
  Alaska and Hawaiian natives historically have had lower student 
achievement levels due to high rates of poverty and the lack of 
resources available to them. Investment in Alaska Native and Native 
Hawaiian programs have decreased student dropout rates and improved 
student achievement. These programs provide students a quality 
education while also recognizing and building upon their unique 
cultural backgrounds.
  As a member of the Native American Caucus, I have worked with my 
colleagues in Congress to address the needs of all Native Americans, 
Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. I will continue to advocate on 
behalf of all of our native populations and work to ensure that they 
have equal opportunities to succeed.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page 2173]]


  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alaska will 
be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1826. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Education, Innovation and Improvement'' shall 
     be $885,786,000, and no funds shall be available for 
     activities authorized under subpart 5 of part A of title II, 
     part D of title II, part D of title V, or section 1504 of the 
     ESEA, or part F of title VIII of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965.
       (b) The first, second, third, fourth, fifth, seventeenth 
     and eighteenth provisos under the heading ``Department of 
     Education, Innovation and Improvement'' in division D of 
     Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by 
     this division.
       Sec. 1827. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Education, Safe Schools and Citizenship 
     Education'' shall be $191,341,000, of which no funds shall be 
     available for activities authorized under subpart 3 of part C 
     of title II or subpart 2, 3, or 10 of part D of title V of 
     the ESEA.
       (b) The first, second, and third provisos under the heading 
     ``Department of Education, Safe Schools and Citizenship 
     Education'' in division D of Public Law 111-117 shall not 
     apply to funds appropriated by this division.
       Sec. 1828. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Education, Special Education'' shall be 
     $3,414,870,000, of which $3,168,654,000 shall become 
     available on July 1, 2011, and remain available through 
     September 30, 2012 (in addition to the $8,592,383,000 
     previously appropriated under such heading that became 
     available on October 1, 2010), and an additional 
     $8,592,383,000, to remain available through September 30, 
     2012, shall be available on October 1, 2011 for academic year 
     2011-2012.
       (b) The first and second provisos under the heading 
     ``Department of Education, Special Education'' in division D 
     of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds appropriated 
     by this division.
       Sec. 1829. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services and 
     Disability Research'' shall be $3,453,388,000.
       (b) The second proviso under the heading ``Department of 
     Education, Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research'' 
     in division D of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated by this division.
       Sec. 1830. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Education, Career, Technical, and Adult 
     Education'' shall be $1,017,338,000, to become available on 
     July 1, 2011, and remain available through September 30, 2012 
     (in addition to the $791,000,000 previously appropriated 
     under such heading that became available on October 1, 2010), 
     and an additional $791,000,000 to remain available through 
     September 30, 2012, shall be available on October 1, 2011 for 
     academic year 2011-2012: Provided, That of the amounts 
     available for such heading, no funds shall be available for 
     activities authorized under subpart 4 of part D of title V of 
     the ESEA, or part D of title VIII of the Higher Education 
     Amendments of 1998.
       (b) The first, second, third, seventh and eighth provisos 
     under the heading ``Department of Education, Career, 
     Technical, and Adult Education'' in division D of Public Law 
     111-117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this 
     division.
       Sec. 1831.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Education, Student Financial Assistance'' 
     shall be $18,475,492,000, of which $17,495,000,000 shall be 
     available to carry out subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 and $980,492,000 shall be 
     available to carry out part C of title IV of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965. The maximum Pell grant for which a 
     student shall be eligible during award year 2011-2012 shall 
     be $4,015.


                  Amendment No. 490 Offered by Ms. Chu

  Ms. CHU. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 301, line 16, strike ``$4,015'' and insert ``$4,860''.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlelady's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved by the gentleman from 
Montana.
  The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Chair, I rise today to strongly support investing in 
America's future. I rise to present the Chu-Moore-Jackson Lee amendment 
to restore full funding to the Pell Grant program.
  With this CR, the Republicans slashed the very funding that ensures 
every American has the opportunity to go to college. H.R. 1 does 
something that is shocking, especially in these tough economic times. 
It deprives millions of students of the financial support that they 
need to go to college. At a time when people are losing jobs, when 
people can't find jobs, when people are scared about whether they have 
a future, Republicans are cutting Pell Grant financial aid by 15 
percent for students across the board. This is an astounding number.
  If the Republicans gut this program, there will be 9 million students 
who will have cuts in their financial aid, endangering their ability to 
go to college. It is the largest cut in student financial aid in 
history. This will hit the neediest students hardest. In California, my 
home State, one-third of undergraduates--nearly 65,000 students--get 
this money for college. And most come from families making less than 
$30,000 a year.
  But this is about more than just numbers and statistics. This is 
about real people and real students, whose real futures are at stake. 
Students like Chris Hamm who attends the University of Cincinnati. 
Chris' Pell Grant pays for a quarter of his college tuition. Without 
this money, Chris doesn't think he will be able to afford school and 
will be forced to drop out, leaving him few options in this tough 
economy.
  Today, we know we are no longer in an arms race. Today, we are in a 
brains race. Every year, we are falling further and further behind 
other countries. Fewer Americans are getting a college degree compared 
to those from other countries. We don't have all the science, math, and 
talent we need to compete. America's ability to remain competitive in a 
global modern economy hinges on our ability to encourage and grow a 
highly educated workforce.
  Gutting Pell Grants in this bill will only compound our future 
economic challenges and undermine the dream that we have for our young 
people to join the middle class. Pell Grants aren't just an investment 
in an individual student but an investment in the future of our Nation.
  We need a comprehensive approach that makes strategic cuts in 
investments with an eye to the future. Instead, the Republicans are 
taking a meat ax to programs that are crucial to American 
competitiveness. This strategy is senseless and it is tragic. It is 
tantamount to telling our young people, You will not have a future.
  Instead, we must win the future by out-innovating, out-building, and 
out-educating the world. We must train all Americans from every class 
and background to succeed in the economy of tomorrow. We must give them 
the financial aid that they need. So I ask Members to support this 
amendment and restore Pell Grant funding to our students.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Chu amendment, 
and for the 19,000 students in Hawaii who rely on Pell grants to pay 
for college.
  That's 22 percent of the student body at Maui College. 30 percent at 
the University of Hawaii at Hilo. 17 percent at UH Manoa. 18 percent at 
UH West Oahu. 22 percent at Chaminade. 13 percent at Hawaii Pacific 
University.
  The underlying bill turns a blind eye to these 19,000 students in 
Hawaii, and 9 million students nationwide. H.R. 1 would slash Pell 
grants by more than 15 percent, the largest cut in the program's 
history.
  Investing in education is an investment in our future. Employees with 
a bachelor's degree earn more than $20,000 per year more than those 
without a degree, and in turn contribute more to the economy in taxes 
and spending. For low-income families struggling to make ends meet, 
Pell grants are a lifeline to help students pay for college.
  Meanwhile, Pell grants have not kept pace with rising tuition costs. 
In 1979, Pell grants helped low-income students at four-year public 
colleges pay for 77 percent of their tuition, fees, room, and board. 
Today, the grant covers less than half that--just 34 percent of college 
expenses.
  In this difficult economy, slashing investments in education like 
Pell is exactly the wrong move to make. The Chu amendment would restore 
full funding to the Pell grant program, and I urge my colleagues to 
adopt it.

[[Page 2174]]

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the CR put 
forward by my Republican colleagues, and in support of the amendment 
offered by Ms. Chu of California, which would restore full funding to 
the Pell Grant program.
  H.R. 1 makes severe cuts to student aid programs in a time of tuition 
increases and tough economic standings. These cuts will impose an even 
heavier burden on many students and families. Specifically, this bill 
makes the largest cut the Pell Grant program, more than 15 percent.
  The Federal Pell Grant program provides much needed financial support 
for more than nine million students nationwide and makes. This 
amendment would specifically maintain the maximum award level for Pell 
Grants at $5,550.
  Pell Grant are solely based on an individual's financial needs and 
are not required to be paid back. They are an effective mechanism to 
help students offset the expensive costs of text books, room and board, 
and school supplies.
  For many, this grant makes the difference between attending college 
or dropping out because they don't have the money to afford tuition or 
books. Yet we know that access to higher education is critical to our 
nation's economic competitiveness.
  We need to do be more to encourage students to pursue education. 
Unfortunately, this legislation will only set us backwards.
  This funding is crucial for students in my district and these drastic 
cuts will have an adverse affect on our nation's ability to be an 
economic leader. Maintaining access to quality and affordable education 
is a vital priority.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment and against 
this C.R.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes a net increase in 
budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under 
section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5, 112th Congress, which states: 
``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general 
appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the 
bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments 
proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority 
pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.''
  The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill 
in violation of such section.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that I think that 
the point of order should not be considered in order because this 
continuing resolution looks at striking waste, fraud, and fat out of 
our budget. And I would argue that amendment No. 490 is in fact the 
bone, the nerve, the blood, and the sinew of our economy.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman will confine her remarks to the 
point of order.

                              {time}  2320

  Ms. MOORE. I am, Mr. Chair, making the point that this amendment is 
in order because it deals with the continuing resolution which would 
slash the Pell Grant funding by $845 and that the purpose of this 
continuing resolution is to slash funding that is unnecessary in our 
budget. I would argue that this amendment should be made in order 
because the Pell Grant is the cornerstone of our Federal financial aid 
programs.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would again remind the gentlewoman to 
confine her remarks to the point of order.
  Ms. MOORE. Will the gentleman restate his point of order?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized to restate his point of 
order.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not in order under 
section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5, 112th Congress, which states:
  ``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general 
appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the 
bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments 
proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority 
pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.''
  The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill 
in violation of such section.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Montana makes a point of order that the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from California violates section 3(j)(3) of 
House Resolution 5.
  Section 3(j)(3) establishes a point of order against an amendment 
proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill.
  The Chair has been persuasively guided by an estimate from the chair 
of the Committee on the Budget that the amendment proposes a net 
increase in budget authority in the bill. Therefore, the point of order 
is sustained. The amendment is not in order.


         Amendment No. 239 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 301, at the end of line 16, strike ``$4,015'' and 
     insert ``$4,860.''

  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Montana reserves a point of 
order.
  The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman will state her inquiry.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I respect the gentleman, but there were 
individuals who wanted to debate on the amendment of Ms. Chu, and I 
think we are allowed to do that except that the gentleman rose on his 
point of order and started speaking to it before we could strike the 
last word.
  Will others be allowed to debate before the gentleman pursues his 
point of order?
  The Acting CHAIR. The Members may offer pro forma amendments. But 
when an amendment is offered, there is no requirement that any point of 
order be reserved rather than pressed.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. A further parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman will state her inquiry.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. So, if Members are on their feet, you would 
be kind enough to recognize them before the gentleman from Montana 
pursues a point of order, which he has already reserved?
  The Acting CHAIR. A pro forma amendment may not be offered while a 
point of order is pending.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me say that I rise to join with the 
Chu-Moore-Jackson Lee amendment and that I now rise to introduce the 
Jackson Lee amendment, which also addresses the question of the Pell 
Grant. I would hope that my colleagues would be allowed to debate it. I 
consider this an emergency, and I will make this point as the gentleman 
makes his point of order.
  Mr. Chair, let me just refer to where we are today because we are 
needing to be engaged in creating jobs. I am not sure what my 
colleagues heard in the last election, but what I heard was that we 
needed jobs.
  It is clear--and I hope that we can see this--we have been here for 5 
weeks plus, and the number of jobs that have been created by the 
Republicans is zero. So here we are now with a 15 percent cut on Pell 
Grants.
  What does that mean?
  It means that schools all around the Nation will not be able to 
provide Pell Grants to the individual students who need them. In fact, 
in my own district, with this 15 percent cut, this 5,550 going down to 
4,705 will drastically impact students in my constituency.
  For example, the cuts will jeopardize education and the future of 
16,570 students who are currently dependent on Pell Grants in order to 
finance their education. 5,726 are currently studying at Texas Southern 
University and 10,847 at the University of Houston--16,570 in my 
district alone. Those from the State of Montana will lose their Pell 
Grants. Those from the State of Alabama, from the State of Connecticut, 
and from the State of Wisconsin will lose their Pell Grants. But

[[Page 2175]]

the real insult is that this will stop the education of thousands upon 
thousands of students in the middle of their education.
  Again, how many jobs have the Republicans created?--zero.
  I always want to bring this chart, which is very hard to see, but we 
can see how many jobs we lost in the last administration. We are on the 
rise of creating jobs. In fact, the CBO said that our future is great. 
It will not be great with a misguided plan to eliminate $600 million 
from the Pell Grant program. It is absolutely absurd. For example, let 
me share with you thoughts from The New York Times:

       This CR is ideologically driven. We started with a $74 
     billion cut, but because the Republicans decided that it is 
     preferable to abide by polls, they decided to move to a 
     draconian and ludicrous $100 billion.

  That means that $600 million was cut from Pell Grants.
  In addition to an amendment that I did not offer, the NIH, we see 
that those grants that were competitive for fellowships and research 
have also been drastically cut at Texas Southern University and at the 
University of Houston, and many State institutions in Texas are 
impacted by the cuts of the NIH grants.
  But this is the greatest sin: In a meeting that I had with my 
community colleges and my school districts, they were in complete panic 
about losing Pell Grants that will then impact on the wonderful upsurge 
of jobs from what we had lost in the last administration.
  I would simply ask my colleagues: Why are we going down a pathway 
that would take away the growth that we have provided?
  So I would ask, as we look to the future, that this be restored. My 
amendment and Ms. Chu's amendment--the one that I joined and the one 
that I intended to speak on--was, in fact, to restore these dollars.
  A new Wall Street Journal survey of economists shows they expect the 
economy to expand at the fastest pace since 2003 but not with these 
draconian cuts. Why wouldn't they do as the President's budget has 
done, which is to get rid of the 2 percent tax cuts for the 
billionaires? We might be able to provide $600 million for students. 
But no. We want to, I guess, stand with ideological viewpoints and with 
individuals who say, I was sent here to budget cut.
  You were sent here to govern. You were sent here to protect the 
American people. Students who will create the workforce of the 21st 
century, you are now telling them they can't get an education.
  Let me say this: The Constitution reminds us of what a wonderful 
country we live in--a country that believes we all are created equal. 
We don't have the same economic opportunities, meaning the same wealth, 
but we do have the ability to access education through wonderful 
programs like the Pell Grant program. Now you're telling poor and low-
income students the door is closed; the lights are out; you're not 
equal, and you don't deserve an education.
  I would say that this is an abomination. Support the amendments that 
will provide for $600 million restored to the Pell Grants. I ask my 
colleagues to vote for the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  H.R. 1, the Continuing Resolution making appropriations to fund the 
federal government through September 20, 2011 contains some very deep 
cuts that will be very hurtful to many Americans, especially those who 
are the most vulnerable--disadvantaged women and families, children, 
minorities, the elderly, and our nation's university students. The 
proposed cuts in the CR will have a disproportionate effect on the low-
income and minority portions of our population.
  As we face a large deficit and growing debt, we know that cuts will 
have to be made. And yes, some of those cuts will be painful. However, 
we must be careful not to place added burdens and cause greater harms 
to those Americans who are the most vulnerable and in need of our 
support the most.
  The proposed CR calls for a 15 percent reduction in funding for Pell 
grants. Such a cut will reduce the maximum Pell grant award from its 
current level of $5,550 to $4,705. This would present a serious problem 
for institutions of higher learning, but more importantly, it creates a 
major hardship on students.
  Current students who receive Pell grants would have to figure out a 
way to come up with nearly an additional $1,000 in order to continue 
their education. Students who have been accepted to school and have 
received their financial aid packages are also put in a position that 
would force them to find and secure additional funds for their 
schooling. Pell Grants provide the basic foundation of federal student 
aid and help more than 8 million students afford to attend college.
  To some of us, $800-$1,000 may not seem significant. However, to a 
student who qualifies for Pell grant assistance, and relies on those 
funds, this would be a great hardship, potentially forcing students to 
take time off from their schooling.
  In my district in Houston, TX, these cuts will jeopardize the 
education and future of 16,570 students who are currently dependent on 
Pell grants in order to finance their education--5,726 currently 
studying at Texas Southern University and 10,847 at University of 
Houston. 16,570 students in one Congressional District alone will be 
unfairly affected by these cuts.
  In the entire state of Texas, 650,790 students currently enrolled in 
school will be forced to deal with unexpected financial hardships under 
this provision. In other words, in my state alone, the number of 
students negatively impacted by this drastic cut to Pell grant funding 
is more than the entire population of Washington, DC. Nationwide, more 
than 9 million students would potentially be impacted.
  Mr. Chair, these cuts are an unnecessary and unfair hardship that 
will be forced on college students. These young men and women represent 
the future labor force of our country, and in these trying economic 
times, I believe it is extremely appalling for Members of Congress to 
purposefully jeopardize the educational and economic future of our 
country.

                                              ESTIMATED STATE-BY-STATE IMPACT ON FEDERAL PELL GRANT PROGRAM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             AY 2011-12 $5,550 Maximum Grant             AY 2011-12 Difference at $4,705 Maximum Grant
                   State or Area                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Aid Available      Recipients      Avg. Award      Aid Available      Recipients      Avg. Award
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...........................................       $772,900,000         178,348          $4,334     ($127,700,000)           (184)          ($713)
Alaska............................................        $32,700,000           8,434          $3,877       ($5,400,000)             (8)          ($637)
Arizona...........................................     $2,221,700,000         601,345          $3,695     ($356,500,000)           (337)          ($592)
Arkansas..........................................       $416,200,000          94,780          $4,391      ($68,800,000)            (97)          ($722)
California........................................     $4,330,700,000       1,038,137          $4,172     ($704,000,000)           (980)          ($675)
Colorado..........................................       $594,400,000         150,699          $3,944      ($98,200,000)           (156)          ($648)
Connecticut.......................................       $281,300,000          72,492          $3,880      ($46,400,000)            (75)          ($636)
Delaware..........................................        $65,500,000          16,594          $3,947      ($10,800,000)            (17)          ($647)
District of Columbia..............................       $165,600,000          44,606          $3,713      ($27,400,000)            (46)          ($612)
Florida...........................................     $2,563,500,000         587,309          $4,365     ($416,200,000)           (388)          ($706)
Georgia...........................................     $1,365,500,000         314,859          $4,337     ($223,000,000)           (241)          ($706)
Hawaii............................................        $80,700,000          18,859          $4,279      ($13,300,000)            (19)          ($702)
Idaho.............................................       $211,600,000          48,803          $4,336      ($35,000,000)            (50)          ($714)
Illinois..........................................     $1,693,800,000         395,672          $4,281     ($277,500,000)           (282)          ($699)
Indiana...........................................       $802,900,000         204,045          $3,935     ($132,700,000)           (210)          ($647)
Iowa..............................................       $809,200,000         205,546          $3,937     ($133,700,000)           (212)          ($647)
Kansas............................................       $316,500,000          76,782          $4,122      ($52,300,000)            (79)          ($678)
Kentucky..........................................       $593,300,000         138,742          $4,276      ($98,000,000)           (143)          ($702)
Louisiana.........................................       $578,200,000         130,187          $4,441      ($95,600,000)           (134)          ($730)
Maine.............................................       $133,000,000          31,503          $4,222      ($22,000,000)            (32)          ($695)
Maryland..........................................       $492,600,000         123,070          $4,003      ($81,400,000)           (128)          ($658)
Massachusetts.....................................       $575,600,000         136,517          $4,216      ($95,100,000)           (141)          ($693)
Michigan..........................................     $1,404,800,000         346,109          $4,059     ($231,700,000)           (461)          ($665)
Minnesota.........................................       $583,000,000         148,629          $3,923      ($96,300,000)           (153)          ($645)
Mississippi.......................................       $566,100,000         120,540          $4,696      ($93,500,000)           (125)          ($771)
Missouri..........................................       $736,600,000         179,451          $4,105     ($121,700,000)           (185)          ($675)

[[Page 2176]]

 
Montana...........................................       $104,700,000          23,896          $4,381      ($17,300,000)            (25)          ($720)
Nebraska..........................................       $171,400,000          43,355          $3,953      ($28,300,000)            (45)          ($649)
Nevada............................................       $129,600,000          32,896          $3,940      ($21,400,000)            (34)          ($647)
New Hampshire.....................................        $86,100,000          21,354          $4,032      ($14,200,000)            (23)          ($661)
New Jersey........................................       $804,000,000         185,446          $4,335     ($132,800,000)           (192)          ($712)
New Mexico........................................       $274,000,000          66,784          $4,103      ($45,300,000)            (69)          ($675)
New York..........................................     $2,832,900,000         536,983          $5,276     ($466,200,000)           (713)          ($863)
North Carolina....................................       $993,900,000         249,958          $3,976     ($165,700,000)           (312)          ($659)
North Dakota......................................        $81,000,000          18,821          $4,304      ($13,400,000)            (20)          ($708)
Ohio..............................................     $1,499,800,000         366,549          $4,092     ($247,900,000)           (705)          ($670)
Oklahoma..........................................       $455,400,000         107,109          $4,252      ($75,200,000)           (110)          ($699)
Oregon............................................       $459,600,000         111,109          $4,136      ($76,000,000)           (115)          ($680)
Pennsylvania......................................     $1,226,500,000         302,255          $4,058     ($209,900,000)           (804)          ($686)
Rhode Island......................................       $151,600,000          36,251          $4,182      ($25,000,000)            (38)          ($686)
South Carolina....................................       $541,300,000         128,126          $4,225      ($89,400,000)           (132)          ($694)
South Dakota......................................       $109,800,000          26,634          $4,123      ($18,100,000)            (28)          ($676)
Tennessee.........................................       $778,500,000         184,299          $4,224     ($128,700,000)           (190)          ($695)
Texas.............................................     $2,723,000,000         650,790          $4,184     ($444,800,000)           (805)          ($679)
Utah..............................................       $390,800,000          96,550          $4,048      ($64,600,000)           (100)          ($666)
Vermont...........................................        $55,200,000          13,301          $4,150       ($9,100,000)            (14)          ($680)
Virginia..........................................       $746,300,000         180,219          $4,141     ($123,300,000)           (186)          ($681)
Washington........................................       $574,000,000         139,500          $4,115      ($94,800,000)           (144)          ($676)
West Virginia.....................................       $274,800,000          61,818          $4,445      ($45,400,000)            (63)          ($730)
Wisconsin.........................................       $486,000,000         119,192          $4,077      ($80,300,000)           (123)          ($670)
Wyoming...........................................        $51,100,000          12,284          $4,160       ($8,400,000)            (13)          ($680)
Puerto Rico.......................................     $1,258,000,000         270,060          $4,658     ($195,800,000)           (535)          ($717)
U.S. Territories..................................        $71,300,000          15,628          $4,562      ($11,700,000)            (16)          ($744)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................................    $39,718,500,000       9,413,225          $4,219   ($6,517,200,000)        (10,437)          ($688)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment to strike the 
provision of the Continuing Resolution, CR, that would significantly 
reduce the level of funding used by the National Institutes of Health, 
NIH, to fund competitive and noncompetitive grant programs. The 
proposed cuts would have a direct detrimental impact on students 
studying at institutions of higher learning.
  Majority of the fellowships offered at institutions of higher 
education are funded by these competitive and non-competitive grants 
issued by the National Institutes of Health, NIH. Under the proposed 
Continuing Resolution, NIH funding would be cut by close to $1 billion. 
Such a cut would have a massive and immediate impact on the ability of 
students to continue their studies.
  Many of the fellowships funded by NIH are multi-year programs, 
meaning that many of the students in receipt of these fellowships are 
studying in expectation of a certain level of funding. These students 
are dependent on these funds in order to continue their studies and pay 
their living expenses. Drastic cuts such as the ones proposed would 
leave these students in a very difficult situation financially, and in 
some cases, may even require them to put their studies on hold.
  My district, the 18th Congressional District in Houston, TX is home 
to a number of colleges and universities, amongst those, Texas Southern 
University--a Historically Black College, and the University Houston 
system--a massive institution responsible for the education of over 
60,000 students.
  In 2010, Texas Southern University, a relatively small institution, 
received $895,228 in educational grants from NIH alone. The University 
of Houston, a much larger school, was able to offer close to 900 
fellowships to students because of over $13.9 million dollars of grant 
funding received from NIH. Under the cuts proposed in the CR, 
approximately a thousand students in my district alone would be 
potentially negatively impacted.
  These grants from NIH enabled students in my district at Texas 
Southern University and University of Houston to study and research in 
the fields of engineering, pharmacy, optometry, education, social work 
and other sciences. These students, and hundreds of thousands of other 
students across the country, are our future. They are actively taking 
steps to win the future for America, and the cuts proposed in this CR 
creating hardships that could lead to failure.
  Not only will these cuts to NIH funding affect current students, but 
it will reduce the number of fellowships that colleges and universities 
will be able to offer to students in the future. We are living in a 
highly competitive global economy. If America intends to remain a 
global super power, we must arm our students with the knowledge and 
tools to remain competitive, specifically quality education. Cutting 
funding to these organizations will impose a great hardship on students 
striving to educate themselves in order that they may be competitive in 
a global economy.
  Just a few weeks ago, during the State of the Union address, 
President Obama laid out his blueprint for how America can ``win the 
future.'' He acknowledged the need for America to tighten its belt and 
make difficult cuts to address our national debt Saying, ``we need to 
take responsibility for our deficit and reform our government.'' And I 
wholeheartedly agree--cuts will have to be made, and some of those cuts 
may be painful.
  However, in the next breath, President Obama stated, ``The first step 
in winning the future is encouraging American innovation.'' The 
research grants and fellowships that NIH has been providing to students 
do exactly that. They allow American students to research and spur 
innovation, which is a long term investment in our economy.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes a net increase in 
budget authority in the bill.
  The amendment is not in order under section 3(j)(3) of House 
Resolution 5, 112th Congress, which states:
  ``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general 
appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the 
bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments 
proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority 
pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.''
  The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill 
in violation of such section.
  I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?

                              {time}  2330

  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I tried to craft my 
discussion in the form of an emergency. The loss of thousands upon 
thousands of students' access to education, I consider that an 
emergency.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman will suspend.
  Will the gentlewoman speak to the point of order.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will.
  I consider this an emergency, and I would ask that this point of 
order be waived in order to provide for the thousands of students, Mr. 
Chairman, that are now going to stop school because of the $1,000, $800 
they will lose. I'm asking the gentleman for a waiver so that this is 
based on an emergency and the fact there was no offset available that 
would not impact negatively other vital programs to make America equal. 
I'd ask for a waiver and I'd ask for this amendment to be accepted and 
the point of order to be waived.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order? The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Montana makes a point of order that the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Texas violates section 3(j)(3) of House 
Resolution 5.

[[Page 2177]]

  Section 3(j)(3) establishes a point of order against an amendment 
proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill.
  The Chair has been persuasively guided by an estimate from the chair 
of the Committee on the Budget that the amendment proposes a net 
increase in budget authority in the bill. Therefore, the point of order 
is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Chu-Moore-Jackson Lee 
amendment for the continuing appropriations act, H.R. 1, because we're 
deeply concerned about the cuts to the Pell Grant funding contained in 
the continuing resolution which would slash funding by $845, a 15 
percent cut, and, of course, this amendment would preserve the Pell 
Grant program and maintain the full award level.
  I am, you know, again, just a little bit perturbed, Mr. Chairman. 
This cut, like so many cuts in the resolution, would disproportionately 
harm traditionally underserved communities. According to the National 
Center for Education Statistics, Pell recipients are more likely to be 
female, first-generation college students, and less likely to be white 
than those who don't receive the grants. In other words, Mr. Chairman, 
they kind of look like me.
  Minority students also face disproportionate unmet need, meaning the 
amount that they still need to pay for college even after family 
contributions, parties, raising money from their churches, grants, 
nonprivate loans still will not meet their needs to go to college. 
Women sometimes come into college with more precarious financial 
situations. They're already parents and mothers.
  Now, you know, if this country is prepared to just slide into 
irrelevancy in the global economic community because we don't educate 
our workforce, this would be the loss leading legislation to do that. 
Cutting the program is so counterintuitive to our remaining a first-
rate power.
  And what is our secret weapon in this country for staying on top? 
It's our diversity, our diversity to be competitive. We're women. We're 
blacks. We're Asians. We're Hispanics. We're Indians. We're Hmong. We 
bring different talents and abilities to the table, and our ability to 
educate these young people comes with our ability to provide a Pell 
Grant which levels the playing field for all students.
  There's not a politician in this country that doesn't make part of 
their platform that this country has got to have a highly educated 21st 
century workforce. There's not a politician, Democrat, Republican, 
Independent, or any other stripe, that doesn't say and pronounce that 
education is the key, and yet we're not willing to provide the 
lubricant so that key can fit into the lock, and that is the resources 
to make sure our students can go to school.
  This Pell Grant is that opportunity. Don't deny it to students. Don't 
deny it. Don't deny it, Mr. Chair.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support for the amendment to 
H.R. 1 to restore funding for the Pell Grant and stand in firm 
opposition to the underlying bill.
  The Pell Grant is extremely vital to help economically disadvantaged 
students pay for higher education. In fact, over 55,000 students in my 
congressional district use the Pell Grant to pay for their higher 
education costs.
  I am highly disappointed that after years of hard work by previous 
Congresses to increase the maximum Pell Grant award to $5,500, the 
Republican Continuing Resolution today would cut Pell Grant resources 
by $5.6 billion reducing the maximum Pell Grant award by $845. Indeed, 
this cut would translate into a loss of tens of millions of dollars in 
financial aid for students in my congressional district alone.
  As Congress looks to enact the full year Continuing Resolution for 
fiscal year 2011, H.R. 1, I urge my colleagues to oppose amendments 
that seek to cut critical education funding and severely impact the 
future of our students, communities, and nation. While cutting the 
deficit is important, doing so at the expense of special education 
grants for local school districts, Head Start for children, and Pell 
Grants to underserved college students, among other educational 
initiatives, is the wrong approach and unacceptable.
  As it stands, H.R. 1 would not only make it more difficult for 
college students to afford a higher education, but it also would make 
it difficult for K-12 schools to provide beneficial services like after 
school tutoring, or much needed literacy, math and science supplemental 
education. In fact, as written, H.R. 1 will cut:
  Head Start by over $1 billion, leaving an estimated 127,000 poor 
children without access to early childhood education, health, and 
social services and the potential loss of over 14,000 jobs;
  ESEA Title IA funding by $693 million, eliminating critical resources 
that help schools assist educationally underserved children in high-
poverty schools and by some estimates would reduce or eliminate 
services for 957,000 high-risk children and result in the loss of over 
9,000 education jobs;
  Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, state grants by 
$557 million, leaving already struggling states and school districts 
with fewer resources to meet the needs of over 324,000 students with 
disabilities and resulting in the loss of another 7,000 education jobs;
  Job Corps by $300 million and eliminate any advance funding 
appropriated in FY 2010 for use in FY 2011, resulting in a $900 million 
cut to the program. These cuts will force the closure of 75 out of 124 
Job Corps centers, the loss of over 21,000 jobs, and leave 36,000 at-
risk-youth without the mentoring and educational services of Job Corps, 
and;
  Hispanic Serving Institutions by $100 million, leaving many 
outstanding universities without the needed funds to educate and 
prepare the fastest growing demographic group in the country.
  Every child deserves a quality education. H.R. 1 threatens America's 
progress and vision to remain competitive in the global arena. While 
the deficit should be a top priority, I urge my colleagues to ensure 
that this bill provides schools and universities the necessary 
resources to prepare our students for the future.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1832. Of the unobligated balances of funds made 
     available in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of section 
     401A(e)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, $986,433,851 
     is rescinded.
       Sec. 1833. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Education, Higher Education'' shall be 
     $1,690,285,000, of which no funds shall be available for 
     activities authorized under part A of title II, part B of 
     title VII or subpart 1 of part D of title VII of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965, section 1543 of the Higher Education 
     Amendments of 1992, part H of title VIII of the Higher 
     Education Amendments of 1998, part I of subtitle A of title 
     VI of the America COMPETES Act, or section 117 of the Carl D. 
     Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006.
       (b) The fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, 
     eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth provisos under 
     the heading ``Department of Education, Higher Education'' in 
     division D of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated by this division.
       Sec. 1834. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences'' 
     shall be $530,106,000.
       Sec. 1835. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Corporation for National and Community Service, Operating 
     Expenses'' shall be $0.
       Sec. 1836. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Corporation for National and Community Service, National 
     Service Trust'' shall be $50,000,000.
       Sec. 1837. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Corporation for National and Community Service, Salaries 
     and Expenses'' shall be $68,000,000.
       Sec. 1838. (a) Of the funds made available for 
     ``Corporation for Public Broadcasting'' in title IV of 
     division F of Public Law 111-8, the unobligated balance is 
     rescinded.
       (b) The amounts included under the heading ``Corporation 
     for Public Broadcasting'' in division D of Public Law 111-117 
     shall be applied to funds appropriated by this division as 
     follows: by substituting ``$0'' for ``$86,000,000''; by 
     substituting ``$0'' for ``$25,000,000''; by substituting 
     ``$0'' for ``$36,000,000''; and by substituting ``$0'' for 
     ``$25,000,000''.


              Amendment No. 436 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 303, strike lines 3 through 9 and insert the 
     following:
       (b) For payment to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting 
     (``Corporation''), as authorized by the Communications Act of 
     1934,

[[Page 2178]]

     an amount which shall be available within limitations 
     specified by that Act, for the fiscal year 2013, 
     $460,000,000: Provided, That none of the funds made available 
     to the Corporation by this Act shall be used to pay for 
     receptions, parties, or similar forms of entertainment for 
     Government officials or employees: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds made available to the Corporation by this 
     Act shall be available or used to aid or support any program 
     or activity from which any person is excluded, or is denied 
     benefits, or is discriminated against, on the basis of race, 
     color, national origin, religion, or sex: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds made available to the Corporation by 
     this Act shall be used to apply any political test or 
     qualification in selecting, appointing, promoting, or taking 
     any other personnel action with respect to officers, agents, 
     and employees of the Corporation: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds made available to the Corporation by this Act 
     shall be used to support the Television Future Fund or any 
     similar purpose.
       (c) For taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the allowance under section 611 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to an oil or gas 
     well shall be calculated without regard to subsection (c) or 
     (d) of section 613A of such Code.

  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Montana reserves a point of 
order.
  The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I'm sad to have to offer this amendment 
this evening. It's more unfortunate that if we're going to be subject 
to a strict interpretation of the House rules, I have a list of 
provisions already in this young session where time after time the 
majority has chosen to waive the rules since they were first adopted, 
when it served their purpose. If our colleagues are serious about 
cutting the deficit, they will not just allow the amendment to be 
debated, but they will vote upon it and pass it.
  Mr. Chairman, the public doesn't care whether the deficit is reduced 
by closing a tax loophole or reducing spending. I'll bet it would 
rather stop another giveaway to large oil companies rather than cutting 
programs that are important to them. For that matter, I think the 
voters like public broadcasting a lot more than they like Congress.
  These funds for public broadcasting are absolutely essential to 
protect. It helps serve 170 million Americans every month. Especially 
important are the innovative programs for education, culture, and 
public affairs.
  Make no mistake, the reduction of the funds that are contemplated by 
my colleagues in 2 years, eliminating public broadcasting support 
altogether, will damage all the stations, and, indeed, I think all of 
us listen to these stations ourselves. But it would particularly hurt 
the stations in rural and small town America.
  First, small town stations rely more heavily on public funds than the 
stations in big cities like Boston, New York, Chicago, and even 
Portland, Oregon.
  Second, not only do these smaller communities rely more heavily on 
the stations that are located there, but in rural and small town 
America, the circumstance is that it is much more expensive to 
broadcast to them. Taking an example in a region familiar to the 
Chairman, in our Pacific Northwest, for Oregon public broadcasting, 
which serves both our districts, it costs 11 times as much to broadcast 
to remote Burns, Oregon, than it does in the metropolitan area.
  Public broadcasting is also the source of innovative journalism that 
you're not going to find anyplace else. At a time when large corporate 
newsrooms are cutting back on foreign affairs, for instance, public 
broadcasting, because of the generous support of viewers and support 
from the country itself, is being able to expand its foreign coverage.

                              {time}  2340

  I'll bet most of us in this Chamber today relied on NPR first thing 
in the morning as we were getting ready to go to work to be aware of 
the recent events, for example, in Egypt. It is particularly important 
for our children. Public broadcasting is the only source of programming 
that is geared to educate our children, not try to sell something to 
them. Pulling out this vital public funding stream is going to 
undermine that mission of educating our children.
  And at a time when I would think that we would want to support 
public-private partnerships, taking away the essential contributions 
that the Federal Government has provided since 1967 undermines that 
public-private partnership where we see six, seven times the funding 
leveraged as a result of that public contribution.
  Mr. Chairman, we've seen this movie before. The Republicans, when 
they came into power before, tried to shut down public broadcasting, 
and we have seen the American public push back. Just this last week, 
tens of thousands of people have called our offices entreating us to 
allow the funding to continue. I would strongly urge that there not be 
selective application of the rules to this amendment but waive, as the 
majority has done time and time again for their purposes, to enable 
this provision to go forward.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, the amendment adds a limitation to a 
general appropriations bill. Under clause 2 of rule XXI, such 
amendments are not in order during the reading of a general 
appropriations bill. The rule states in part: ``Except as provided in 
paragraph D, an amendment proposing a limitation not specifically 
contained or authorized in existing law for the period of the 
limitation shall not be in order during consideration of a general 
appropriations bill.''
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment adds a limitation and is not specifically 
contained or authorized in existing law during the reading. The 
amendment, therefore, is in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The amendment includes a limitation. As such, under clause 2(c) and 
2(d) of rule XXI, it is not in order, as a matter of form, until the 
reading for amendment has progressed to the end of the bill.
  The point of order is sustained.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. It's deja vu. Here we go again. This week, we are again 
fighting extreme efforts to dismantle the public broadcasting services 
that 170 million Americans use for news and education. In 1995 and in 
2005, we defeated efforts to slash the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting. How long will it take for some people to learn that the 
public wants Congress to focus on creating jobs, not laying off Burt 
and Ernie with GO-pink slips. My grandchildren are learning from not 
only old favorites like Big Bird, but also Maya and Miguel, Clifford 
the Big Red Dog, and a cast of other fun and educational characters.
  Millions of Americans rely on public TV and radio for vital news in 
the community, and broadcasters leveraged $6 for every $1 in Federal 
funds. Do we want to live in a society in which the only characters 
that appear on children's programs are those who gross the highest 
profits rather than those who deliver the most compelling lessons to 
our kids? Or one where our news is delivered primarily from sources 
focused on their bottom line? Of course not. That is why I am so 
pleased to support this amendment to restore cuts.
  In recent years, we have already cut funding for programs related to 
public broadcasting, including the Department of Education's Ready-to-
Teach Program. We cannot abandon the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting altogether. Republicans should be less preoccupied with 
silencing Cookie Monster and more focused on getting our economy back 
on track.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page 2179]]


  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hard work that the 
House Appropriations Committee has done in crafting a bill that in so 
many ways is making the tough choices necessary to bring back fiscal 
sanity to Washington. I am pleased that they have incorporated a bill 
that I had earlier filed in this session, H.R. 69, which also would 
eliminate taxpayer subsidies for the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting. There are a number of well-known accountability groups, 
such as the Club for Growth, Americans for Limited Government, and 
National Taxpayers Union, that have all endorsed this end of funding 
for taxpayer-supported broadcasting.
  You know, if we go back in time, in 1967, when the Public 
Broadcasting Act was first enacted, the intent of that act was ``to 
provide telecommunications services to all citizens in the United 
States.'' Well, that has been accomplished. That was over 40 years ago. 
Now we have 500 channels on cable TV. People get Internet access on 
their cell phones. We have satellite, wireless available around this 
country. We have so many media options that are available now that were 
not available 40 years ago. So we have fulfilled the purpose of that 
Act.
  Now that Republicans are in control of the House, we're getting 
serious about getting the budget under control.
  There is some good programming that the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting produces that I personally enjoy and like; but that's not 
the issue, whether we like it or not. It's whether taxpayers should 
subsidize this form of broadcasting. When something puts out good 
quality programming, like the corporation does, they could survive, if 
they wanted to go into the free market and get funding--whether it's 
selling advertising or something like that. They are perfectly capable 
of surviving, and not just surviving but thriving in the open market 
because they do have some good-quality programming. They don't need to 
rely on taxpayers.
  And when you look at what a deep fiscal hole we are in now as a 
country--for instance, this annual deficit that we are in the middle of 
right now is going to be $1.6 trillion, the highest in the history of 
this country. The time has come to end funding for government programs 
that are no longer necessary.
  So it's a matter of fiscal responsibility and fiscal sanity that the 
Appropriations Committee has produced this amendment. It's not against 
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; but it's for the taxpayers, 
saying, You don't have to keep subsidizing something that no longer 
needs the government crutch that it originally was given.

                              {time}  2350

  The amount of money we're talking about is considerable. For fiscal 
year 2011, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting appropriation is 
$430 million. For next year, it will be $445 million. And President 
Obama's budget request that was just submitted that we got on Monday 
asks for $451 million for 2014. That's almost half a billion dollars. 
When we have $1.5 trillion annual deficits, we have to get our budget 
in order. And the reason is because, by leaving money in the private 
sector, that will create jobs. Rather than the government and the 
favored programs having the money, if that can stay in the private 
sector, people can invest and create private sector jobs, and those are 
the jobs that Americans are really looking for.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Oregon that the majority has, unfortunately, 
ruled out of order.
  In this continuing resolution, the Republicans are trying to 
dismantle one of the most precious landmarks of the entire media 
landscape. Public broadcasting is an electronic oasis for learning in 
what has been called the vast wasteland of commercial television.
  Now, why do I say that? Well, I say it because you just have to look 
at what is on commercial television from the perspective of a parent 
with children trying to ensure that those children are given the 
educational and informational programming that will help in their 
development.
  Here's a short sampling of what was on television during the day 
today. There's a spate of daytime soap operas which are full of adult 
themes not appropriate for young children. Then there were programs on 
this afternoon such as ``Hoarding,'' ``Buried Alive,'' and ``The 
Babysitter's Seduction.'' Again, more programming not suitable for 
children. In addition, there was ``Hollywood's Most Shocking 
Breakups,'' and ``Dog, the Bounty Hunter,'' and they were not talking 
about Clifford the Big Red Dog.
  Ladies and gentlemen, what we hear is that the private sector, 
private television, commercial television is taking care of the 
children's audience. It does not. The Cartoon Network is in no way to 
be compared to what is on the Public Broadcasting System from 6 a.m. 
every morning until 6 p.m. every night, 12 hours every day, something 
that parents can rely upon for their children to see which is 
educationally nutritious for their development. And it's on every 
television station, every public television station in the country, 
every single day.
  Let me give you a typical day. On WGBH up in Boston, but on every 
other public television station, beginning at 6 a.m., it's ``Between 
the Lions,'' then ``Clifford the Big Red Dog'' and ``Arthur,'' followed 
by ``Martha Speaks,'' ``Curious George,'' ``Dinosaur Train'' and 
``WordWorld,'' which brings us all the way up to noontime. The parents 
are happy. The kids have good programming that they're watching.
  And then rather than soap operas in the afternoon, on the Public 
Broadcasting System, the kids get to see ``Sid the Science Guy,'' 
``WordGirl,'' ``The Electric Company,'' and on and on and on until 6 
every night.
  PBS is really the children's television network, and generations of 
children and parents have benefited from this programming being on.
  What the Republicans are trying to do is just end this era and just 
toss these families over to this commercial world, which is fine if you 
really do believe that Cartoon Network and other networks like that 
targeted at children for commercial purposes can in any way substitute 
for this Sesame Street diet that children have been on for more than 
one generation and have immeasurably helped, not just those that come 
from the white upper middle class, but in polling it's actually above 
80 percent, whether your family is Asian, Hispanic, white, African 
American. All poll out at 80 percent in terms of what those parents 
believe about the benefit that comes from the Public Broadcasting 
System in the children's programming that is presented to those 
children.
  So CPB doesn't just stand for Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It 
also stands for Children and Parents Benefit. And that's why it's 
important. And that's why it was important in 1967, and that's why it 
is important today. This has been the crown jewel in our national media 
mix when it comes to the children of our country. And this attempt to 
take out a meat cleaver and to cut this programming source off in a way 
that would harm those families in our country is a huge mistake.
  Now, Mr. Blumenauer has attempted to offer an amendment that would 
have restored the full $460 million in funding for the Public 
Broadcasting System. But in turn, what his amendment would have tried 
to do is to go to the big tax breaks for oil and gas companies in our 
country.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MARKEY. I would ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts?
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.

[[Page 2180]]


  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. And it's altogether understandable why the gentleman who 
did object objected because I know where he's coming from on this. He 
did not want to hear the next sentence, because the gentleman from 
Montana is someone who does believe that the tax breaks for Big Oil 
should stay on the books. It's $40 billion over the next 5 years, and 
he'd rather see a cutting of Big Oil be substituted by a cutting of Big 
Bird. Okay? That's what tonight's all about, just this misallocation of 
resources within our society.
  And I understand why the gentleman from Montana doesn't want to hear 
those words spoken, but he should get ready to hear it over and over 
again. Big Oil is going to get all the breaks that they want, and it 
might come at the expense of children's television or poor people. But 
I will tell you this much. Grandma isn't going to get her lunch because 
of these people over here. And these guys want to continue to take Big 
Oil to lunch, but we're going to have a big debate about this as each 
and every day goes by.
  I thank the gentlelady, and I congratulate the gentleman from Oregon 
for making this amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Very briefly, and I thank the gentleman 
from Massachusetts for confirming the strategy that is being used by 
our friends on the other side of the aisle. If it's good, if it has 
been good, it's time for it to go.
  I'm going to join the gentleman in supporting the gentleman from 
Oregon's amendment and to cite Channel 8 in Houston, Texas, that 
compensates for bloody domestic fights on domestic or commercial TV 
during the day and doesn't expose our children to opportunities for 
learning.
  I might add, the National Public Radio, as well, has its challenges. 
So I just hope that as we begin to understand that our economy is 
churning, that we will invest in our children, which the National 
Public Radio represents.
  And as my friend from New York said, Big Bird is still alive, and 
other new characters have been utilized to teach children. Public 
broadcast equalizes opportunity for good education in preschool for 
children who are at home, or in home daycare, to give them an exposure 
to learning, reading, writing and colorful activities.
  So let me just say that I'm sorry the gentleman's amendment was ruled 
out of order. It looks as if we have just turned our head away from 
investing in education--cutting Pell Grants, cutting NIH fellowships 
and scholarships, cutting public broadcast. It looks like we've just 
said enough is enough with job creation and let's get rid of education 
as well. And I ask, of course, that this CR be defeated.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I strongly support the 
Blumenauer, Lowey, Markey amendment to restore our commitment to the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Public broadcasting provides an 
essential service, providing millions of Americans with educational and 
cultural programming. In my district, and throughout the entire 
Washington, DC metropolitan region, we have been admirably served by 
public broadcasting stations like WETA on television and WAMU on the 
radio for many years.
  Support for public broadcasting was first provided in 1967, and has 
been maintained for more than 40 years--it is an American institution. 
Whose children have not grown up learning their A,B,Cs from Sesame 
Street? Who has not enjoyed one of the many rich musical performances 
or riveting documentaries, including Ken Burns' historic 1990 series on 
the American Civil War, and a recent series on America's national 
parks, shown exclusively on PBS?
  In America, unlike many countries around the world, the media 
industry always has been a completely commercial enterprise. Public 
broadcasting was not designed to supplant private media--and given the 
explosion of private television channels it clearly has not. Instead it 
merely provides viewers with a broad selection of educational and 
cultural programs that are available for free in every household in 
every community. I myself did not subscribe to cable television until 
just a few years ago and routinely watched PBS using rabbit ears on my 
old television set. Millions of Americans choose PBS, and they support 
it with their own money by donating to local stations during pledge 
drives. This has been a successful partnership, leveraging public 
investment with private funds for decades. That's why the proposed 
Republican cut is all the more surprising, given their alleged 
reverence for respecting the popular will expressed on You Cut. The 
number of Americans who support public broadcasting with their private 
contributions exceeds all of the participation in You Cuts by tens of 
multiples.
  I recognize the need to control federal spending and reduce the 
deficit, and I support responsible reductions to that end. However, 
eviscerating public broadcasting is not responsible budgeting and 
flaunts any pretense of respect for popular support.
  While less than twenty percent of its funding comes from the federal 
government, any reduction in support would result in significant 
degradation of the educational and cultural programming it provides. 
Public broadcasting is an extraordinarily cost-effective investment in 
America's cultural and educational advancement. For more than 40 years, 
PBS has brought the world to our living rooms, regardless of our 
financial means or where we lived. A PBS is to broadcasting what the 
Internet is to the digital revolution, and like the Internet 
democratizes and makes universal access to information. We must not 
sever access to such a unifying public resource at the short-sighted 
altar of fiscal dogma. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
the Blumenauer, Lowey, Markey amendment. Support the American 
institution of Public Broadcasting.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in strong support of Mr. 
Blumenauer's amendment to restore funding to the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting.
  The Republican move to gut funding for public broadcasting in this 
Omnibus spending bill is an incredibly bad idea.
  Millions of Americans rely on public broadcasting for their news, 
entertainment, and local programming.
  Public broadcasting provides programs and services that inform, 
enlighten, and enrich our society.
  And in a world enlightened by all too often ill-informed and 
sensationalist cable ``news'' shows, public broadcasting provides 
thoughtful, even handed analysis of the issues of the day.
  Simply put, public broadcasting helps educate our society and 
celebrates the arts, education, respectful debate and civil discourse.
  The CPB enables nearly 1,300 public radio and television stations--
like KCBX, KCLU, and KOCE, in my district--to stay on the air and 
broadcast quality, commercial-free news and educational programming.
  These stations reach 260 million Americans in every corner of this 
country--bringing ``All Things Considered'' and ``Car Talk'' into our 
cars and Sesame Street, Frontline, the Newshour and NOVA into our 
living rooms.
  I know that my district is a far richer place because of these 
important public broadcasting outlets.
  The CPB also promotes public-private partnerships.
  And as we look for ways to reduce our spending, we ought to look to 
agencies and programs that have the most bang for the buck.
  By providing essential foundational money, the CPB enables public 
stations to leverage funds to raise the additional resources they need 
to fully cover operating costs.
  Ending CPB funding would undeniably punish these successful 
partnerships.
  Finally, the public radio and TV stations supported by CPB are 
locally owned and consistently broadcast content important to their 
communities.
  In rural areas, these stations are frequently the only source of free 
local, national, and international news.
  Public broadcasting is often a lifeline for Americans in times of 
natural disasters, providing up-to-date information on evacuation 
routes and evacuation center locations.
  CPB funds are vital to the success of public broadcasting.
  You know, some years ago Newt Gingrich went after Big Bird and the 
results weren't pretty.
  The American people made it clear that they like their local NPR 
stations and other public broadcasters.
  They believed that supporting public broadcasting was a worthwhile 
use of their tax dollars.
  I don't think that sentiment has changed.
  I urge my colleagues to restore funding to the CPB by supporting Mr. 
Blumenauer's commonsense amendment.

[[Page 2181]]

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chair, I rise to express support for Amendment 436, 
offered by Mr. Blumenauer, to restore funding to the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support as 
well.
  Recently, I spoke to one of my constituents who expressed his sorrow 
to me at the prospect of losing public broadcasting services. As he put 
it, he pays less than two dollars a year in taxes for the service, but 
it brightens his day every morning that he listens to his favorite 
public radio shows. To him, it was a simple equation of value for 
money.
  He specifically voiced his support for National Public Radio (NPR) 
and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). NPR is a public-private 
membership media organization that syndicates programming for hundreds 
of public radio stations across the country. Individual member 
stations, such as local university stations are required to be non-
commercial, and educational in nature, and are not required to 
broadcast all NPR programming.
  And despite what I have heard from my colleagues, the truth is that 
only about two percent of NPR funding is directly provided by the 
federal government, under the Corporation for Public Broadcasting 
(CPB), which also funds PBS. The reality is that the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting receives around .0001% of the annual federal 
budget. Eliminating that funding would save Americans less than half a 
cent a day, and in doing so, eliminate a valuable educational, 
cultural, and community resource.
  But the value of the services are unending. As a former board chair 
of my district's local PBS TV station, I can attest to the value local 
programming offers to my constituents. I hear from families, seniors, 
and everyday commuters who use public broadcasting to get local news, 
to learn something new about the world, and teachers who use its 
educational programming in their classrooms.
  Moreover, public TV and radio stations employ over 17,000 people 
across the country--jobs that no one can afford to lose--and especially 
not now.
  Mr. Chair, the number of listeners and viewers speak for themselves. 
Every month, over 170 million Americans use public media--through 368 
public television stations, 934 public radio stations, hundreds of 
online services, education services, and in-person events and 
activities. Every month over half of all Americans use public media.
  Defunding public broadcasting would be a deep and misguided error, 
and would lose our country a great resource.
  Maintaining support for public, educational, and government channels 
and networks is necessary to facilitate communication, and I am 
dedicated to ensuring that citizens have access to tools that inform, 
educate, and encourage interest in local activities.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on Amendment 436, and to uphold the 
legacy of American public broadcasting.

                              {time}  0000

  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1839.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Institute of Museum and Library Services, Office of Museum 
     and Library Services, Grants and Administration'' shall be 
     $265,869,000.
       Sec. 1840.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, Salaries and 
     Expenses'' shall be $12,450,000.
       Sec. 1841.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``National Labor Relations Board, Salaries and Expenses'' 
     shall be $233,400,000.


           Amendment No. 410 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk made 
in order by the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 303, line 19, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $233,400,000)''.
       Page 359, line 15, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $233,400,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I think it's important to put this discussion 
tonight in a little context.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle are fond of saying that we 
want to dismantle this and slash that and cut that. And the truth of 
the matter, Madam Chair, is that what we want to do is save. We want to 
save the American taxpayer and, yes, save the country. Because what is 
happening, and the American people know it, is that this Federal 
Government has for year after year after year and more over the last 4 
years borrowed too much and spent too much and taxed too much, and it's 
destroying jobs. It is destroying jobs.
  If you don't believe the words, all you have to do is look at the 
picture. The pictures show very clearly that's what is happening. This 
is 2006 down here when Speaker Pelosi came into power, and the amount 
of spending at the Federal level. And this is where we are right now, 
about one-third more under this administration, and this is where it is 
going. And the American people are sick and tired of it. And what they 
sent folks here to Washington to do is to decrease spending, to 
decrease borrowing, and to decrease taxes so that we can put the 
American people back to work.
  That's what this is all about. It's not about some small program here 
or some large program there. It's about putting American people back to 
work and making the government the right size.
  So I rise on my amendment, which identifies an agency that can only 
be described as anti-worker and anti-business and anti-jobs. You know 
what it is, Madam Chair. It is the National Labor Relations Board. It's 
a New Deal relic charged with conducting elections for labor union 
representation and investigating unfair labor practices. However, what 
has happened is that the board has gotten beyond any claims that it's a 
neutral arbiter of labor relations. And this starts with Craig Becker, 
the recess appointment, which means no Senate confirmation by the Obama 
administration, to lead the board. He has got huge ties to SEIU and 
AFL-CIO, and has proven to be very adept at carrying the water for Big 
Labor while siding against American employers and the American 
taxpayer. He could hardly be characterized as an impartial voice.
  The out-of-control NLRB now is seeking to expand the board's role 
beyond current law. American businesses are under constant threat from 
the NLRB. They tried to push for card check, which is actually the 
``Secret Ballot Destruction Act.'' You will recall, Madam Chair, that 
this was a bill that the Democrats, when they were in charge of this 
whole place, couldn't get through Congress so now they want to do it by 
rule. They want to enact it by rule through the NLRB. A remarkable, 
remarkable overreach. They try to rig the deck over and over again.
  But the rigging of the deck is just what Big Labor needs at this 
point, because the private sector unionization is only about 7 percent 
in this country of our workforce. So a new influx of dues-paying 
members is needed for their contributions and for their political 
campaigns.
  So my amendment is very simple. At a time of crippling national debt 
that destroys jobs, my amendment would defund the NLRB and save the 
American taxpayer $283 million. It makes sense, since this agency 
really has seen its role remarkably diminish. The NLRB's caseload has 
shrunk dramatically, by some estimates, a 40 percent drop in elections 
and petitions since 2001. And yet, while its role has been diminishing, 
its reach into America's workplaces and into America's pocketbooks has 
only expanded.
  So a vote for this amendment would be a vote for America's job 
creators, and we would work to defund an agency whose time has really, 
really passed. So I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I seek time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Foxx). The gentlewoman from Connecticut is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. This is amazing. What a step backward for democracy if 
there was support for this bill. This amendment would actually 
eliminate all funding for the National Labor Relations Board.
  The NLRB has been in existence for 75 years. Its functions are to 
protect the rights of workers to unionize or not unionize; to promote 
peaceful, productive relations between labor and management. It 
conducts secret ballot elections to determine whether workers

[[Page 2182]]

want to be represented by a union. It investigates, it resolves 
complaints of unfair labor practices that are brought against both 
unions and employers. It protects workers from retaliation from 
exercising their rights. These functions are fundamental to democracy 
and a workplace. Why do we want to throw out the entire system with 
nothing to replace it?
  If the amendment were adopted, what would take the place of the NLRB 
in determining workers' preferences about unionization? If workers are 
fired for joining a union, where would they go for a remedy?
  The continuing resolution itself is bad enough as far as the NLRB is 
concerned. It cuts the board's budget by $50 million, an 18 percent cut 
to be made in the last 6 months of the year. So it really winds up 
being a 36 percent cut. It would have to furlough employees to get 
through the rest of the year, furloughs that could be as much as 3 
months per each employee. Now, these are folks who want to really 
create jobs, and now we are going to lay off people. In other words, 
the CR has crippled already the ability of the board to protect 
workers' rights. It's simply about protecting workers' rights, and to 
shut down the board completely truly is a backwards step for democracy.
  I urge the defeat of the amendment. And I certainly hope whatever the 
final appropriations legislation for 2011 ultimately emerges will 
ensure that the NLRB has enough funding to continue to do its job.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ANDREWS. This amendment sets a new standard of irresponsibility 
that I hope the House never again emulates.
  Let's assume that a worker who is trying to organize a union is fired 
because of his or her union organizing activity, files a complaint 
against the employer for an unfair labor practice, and the National 
Labor Relations Board is in the process of determining whether that 
claim is right or wrong and what should happen as a result.
  Or, let's imagine that a worker believes that he or she has not been 
properly represented by the union they are in, and they file a claim 
against their union claiming that the union has failed in its duty to 
represent that worker.
  This amendment says that both of those claims and others will just 
stop in the middle. We will pull the plug from the adjudication of the 
rights of these Americans.
  I frankly think that it's ironic that a majority which chooses to 
define itself in terms of its great devotion to the Constitution may be 
proposing an amendment that violates the due process rights of American 
citizens kind of on its face.
  If you file a claim and a duly constituted adjudicatory body starts 
to hear that claim, my sense is the Congress cannot step in and 
interrupt that claim in the middle of its adjudication and take your 
rights away. But that appears to be what is happening here.
  This is a precedent that would be inappropriate and even dangerous to 
the extreme in this regard: The principle that apparently informs this 
amendment is if Congress doesn't like something that an agency is doing 
substantively, we can pull the plug on the agency and not give it any 
more money in the middle of its deliberations.
  Imagine for a moment if during the runup to the Wall Street meltdown 
in 2008 that those of us who were unhappy with decisions of the 
Securities and Exchange Commission, which we were unhappy with, said 
we're so unhappy with what the SEC is doing, we're going to defund that 
organization and stop the process of any investigations they are doing, 
stop the process of any decisions they are making. Just pull the plug 
in the middle of their deliberations.

                              {time}  0010

  I think that the majority would have correctly criticized us for an 
act of irresponsibility. We didn't do that. When we disliked the 
actions of the SEC, we came together and passed a law, the Dodd-Frank 
law last year, that tried to improve its operations. That is the way a 
responsible legislative body acts.
  So forget for a moment about the consequences of this amendment for 
those who work for the NLRB or for those somehow engaged in it. Let's 
talk about the litigants, the workers, the employers, the unions, all 
of those involved here. The agency just disappears the day that this 
law is signed.
  Yes, Congress has the power of the purse, but with power comes 
responsibility. This is an amendment which sets a new low standard of 
irresponsibility in this House. If we don't like the substantive 
decisions of an agency, then amend the statute they are operating under 
or litigate those decisions. But to pull the plug in the middle of 
decisionmaking that affects thousands of Americans is, frankly, an 
abuse of the power of the purse. I think it is unconstitutional or a 
violation of the due process rights of those litigants, and I would 
urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition 
to this legislation. As my colleague from New Jersey has pointed out 
and the ranking member of the subcommittee, this amendment, to begin 
with, seems to make no sense at all. It is interesting, as the 
gentleman said, you pull the plug, but then everybody is left without a 
right. There is no private right of action. There is no place to go.
  There were some 1,571 secret ballot elections for union 
representation last year that were supervised by the National Labor 
Relations Board to certify those unions, or to decertify unions in some 
cases where that action was taken in the secret election; and now there 
will be no remedy. You won't be able to decertify the union; you won't 
be able to certify the union.
  There are employees every day who are fired for simply suggesting to 
their employer that they would like to have a union. That alone will 
get you fired over and over again in this country. That employee is now 
without a job, but no right of action to go back and find out whether 
that person was wrongfully fired.
  The same is true if an employer wants to make an allegation of 
secondary boycott, which is illegal under the law. Where do they go for 
the remedy? Where do they go? There is no private right of action. It 
is contained within the National Labor Relations Act, and it is 
administered by the board.
  So this amendment just sort of creates chaos; and it denies people 
rights, be they employers or employees, be they pro-union or anti-
union, whatever it is. Whatever their situation is, this simply denies 
them the ability to take advantage of the law or to have the law 
administered in any way or fashion, and it provides really no 
alternative to them, because, as I said, this occupies the entire area 
for these individuals.
  So I don't know if this law is a temper tantrum. I don't know if this 
law is just--I don't know what the hell it is. But clearly it doesn't 
address what might be legitimate concerns about the operation of the 
board.
  The board has been controversial over the years and back and forth, 
and people have agreed and disagreed with its rulings and its actions. 
Or you might want to amend the law. But this amendment doesn't do any 
of this. And I would certainly hope that we would continue--when you 
look around at other countries, I think you would say this is a pretty 
successful system of managing labor relations in the workplace. It 
certainly took a history of actions that people considered wrong and 
dangerous and concerned about the economy, concerned about individual 
safety, concerned about the safety of workplaces and the ability of 
businesses to survive, and through the passage of the National Labor 
Relations Act regularized that so people had a place to go for their 
complaints and determine their rights.
  So I would hope that Members of Congress would reject this amendment

[[Page 2183]]

and maintain the rights of workers and employers to have their concerns 
addressed and adjudicated, if necessary.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1842.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Railroad Retirement Board, Dual Benefits Payments Account'' 
     shall be $57,000,000.
       Sec. 1843.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Social Security Administration, Payments to Social Security 
     Trust Funds'' shall be $21,404,000, and in addition such 
     funds may be used to carry out section 217(g) of the Social 
     Security Act.
       Sec. 1844.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for the 
     first paragraph under the heading ``Social Security 
     Administration, Limitation on Administrative Expenses'' shall 
     be $10,675,500,000.


                 Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Tonko

  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 304, beginning on line 3, strike section 1844.

  Mr. REHBERG. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chairman, I offer this amendment because I am 
seriously concerned about the effect the irresponsible Republican 
spending plan will have on our Nation's seniors.
  This amendment would stop the cut of $125 million to the Social 
Security Administration's operating budget. Slashing funding for the 
Social Security Administration is slashing money out of Social 
Security, plain and simple. Cuts to Social Security will directly 
affect our seniors, there is no way around it; and my amendment seeks 
to avert this impending crisis.
  The funding in this irresponsible Republican spending plan is over 
half a billion dollars less than what Social Security spent in 2010 to 
process payments to seniors and carry out basic operations. But the 
cost of running Social Security in 2010 will not suffice for 2011. Our 
Nation's baby boomers are retiring each month, growing the number of 
seniors in the system and the number of claims Social Security must 
process each month. This continuing resolution leaves Social Security 
more than $1 billion short of what they actually need to help keep 
checks going out on time to seniors.
  This irresponsible Republican spending bill creates an enormous 
funding shortfall that Social Security will not have to survive on for 
the remainder of the year. Both Social Security and the Office of 
Management and Budget have confirmed that these massive cuts would 
force Social Security to lay off nearly 3,500 employees, furlough other 
employees, and close their offices in States across the country for up 
to 4 weeks.
  What does this mean for seniors on Social Security? It means that 
400,000 seniors would not have their applications processed this year. 
It means that 290,000 people would not have their disability 
applications processed, adding months of wait time for newly sick and 
disabled workers with no other source of income.
  It means that 70,000 fewer people will have their appeals heard, 
burdening seniors and the disabled with wait times of over a year 
before their cases can move forward and allow them to receive their 
benefits earned. And it means that there will be 32,000 fewer 
investigations to root out improper payments, fraud and abuse.
  Each month Social Security processes nearly 500,000, half a million, 
yes, half a million, new applications from seniors and the disabled. 
Employee layoffs and office closures lasting a month would delay 
benefits to all those applicants, disrupting seniors' and widows' 
checks and delaying payments for those trying to live on a fixed 
income.
  Furthermore, closing Social Security offices would create a backlog 
of applicants, so even when offices reopened they would be dealing with 
an ongoing backlog of applications affecting our seniors long into the 
future. Who knows when they would ever catch up on the claims.
  Never in the history of Social Security has there been a backlog of 
retirement and survivors' benefit applications. This bill is certainly 
precedent setting. Without a doubt, it would create the first Social 
Security backlog in our Nation's history.

                              {time}  0020

  This bill would force the Social Security system to shut its doors 
for up to a month, something that will affect every person receiving 
Social Security payments. People will get busy signals or unanswered 
rings when they call their local offices for help. Seniors will wait 
weeks for appointments and wait even longer to access their hard-earned 
benefits. Make no mistake about it, the seniors we represent--the 
entire body here represents--will feel the impact of these cuts.
  The majority is lauding the fact that this bill represents the 
largest spending cut in the history of our country. If they want to cut 
funding to satisfy that base, fine. But I will not stand for cutting 
Social Security. I will not support budget cuts balanced on the backs 
of our Nation's seniors and middle class that bail out the rich and 
comfortable. I urge defeat of this bill and the adoption of my 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. REHBERG. Madam Chair, the amendment proposes a net increase in 
the budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under 
3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5, 112th Congress, which states: ``It shall 
not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations 
bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless 
considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an 
equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 
2(f) of rule XXI.''
  The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill 
in violation of such section.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I rise to speak against the point of order.
  My amendment eliminates the extreme and irresponsible budget cuts to 
Social Security. These cuts will create massive gaps in Social 
Security's operating budget, leading to even larger costs in the 
future. My amendment averts this shortsighted downfall, creating a net 
budget savings that addresses the gentleman's point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman must confine his remarks to the point 
of order.
  Mr. TONKO. These cuts pose real threats to Social Security and 
seniors' benefits.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York will confine his 
remarks to the point of order.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I ask that this point of order be waived. And 
on behalf of seniors in my district and seniors across this country who 
rely on Social Security, I ask that the gentleman withdraw his point of 
order. We cannot blindly cut Social Security in the name of reducing 
the deficit without regard to drastic consequences.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend.
  Mr. TONKO. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Montana makes a point of order that the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York violates section 3(j)(3) of 
House Resolution 5.
  Section 3(j)(3) establishes a point of order against an amendment 
proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill.

[[Page 2184]]

  The Chair has been persuasively guided by an estimate from the chair 
of the Committee on the Budget that the amendment proposes a net 
increase in budget authority in the bill. Therefore, the point of order 
is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1845.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for the 
     first paragraph under the heading ``Social Security 
     Administration, Supplemental Security Income Program'' shall 
     be $39,892,164,000, of which $3,402,164,000 shall be for 
     administrative expenses.
       Sec. 1846.  Of the funds appropriated for ``Social Security 
     Administration, Limitation on Administrative Expenses'' for 
     fiscal years 2010 and prior years (other than funds 
     appropriated in Public Law 111-5) for investment in 
     information technology and telecommunications hardware and 
     software infrastructure, $500,000,000 is rescinded.


                 Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Tonko

  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 304, beginning on line 12, strike section 1846.

  Mr. REHBERG. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Madam Chair.
  I offer this amendment because I am seriously concerned about the 
effect of the irresponsible Republican spending bill on our Nation's 
seniors and most specifically on our Social Security system. If my 
amendment does not pass, $500 million will be stripped from Social 
Security. In this nearly 400-page irresponsible Republican spending 
bill, which has held no hearings, which was written and debated through 
the night and is being rammed through this Chamber, Social Security is 
put at risk.
  The bedrock and foundation for so many of our Nation's seniors and 
retirement is Social Security; and yet this bill would steal half a 
billion dollars from the program. This is money that helps keep the 
lights on, the doors open, and the checks going out to those who earned 
it--those who worked hard and play by the rules. It goes to those who 
have rightfully paid into the system and deserve their return on 
investment. And it should not be taken away in the dead of night.
  Nearly half a billion dollars, if stolen back from Social Security, 
will be devastating. In fact, we might as well put the sign on the door 
of Social Security now: Sorry, we're closed for business. That is 
because a cut of $500 million will lay off employees that process and 
mail these checks to seniors. It will furlough every Social Security 
Administration employee for a month or more this year. Every worker 
that works for the Social Security Administration could potentially 
lose his or her job for at least 1 month this year.
  Most of my constituents might say, Well, I don't really know anybody 
that works for the Social Security Administration. What does that mean 
for me? Unfortunately, it means 400,000 people across these United 
States will not have their claims processed this year. Think of it. 
You're finally eligible for Social Security. Your plan for monthly 
income and budget based on this program is disrupted. Perhaps it even 
allows you to retire completely after a long and productive life of 
work. You walk up to the office to apply, but you are greeted with a 
dark and empty building. Or perhaps you called to ensure your payments 
will soon be processed, and all you get is a dial tone. Nobody is there 
to answer.
  This is unthinkable. Even more egregious, 290,000 disabled workers 
would wait months for their claims to be processed, threatening already 
vulnerable people with further insecurity. Or imagine you want to 
appeal your funding amount or there's an error in your payment. What do 
you do?
  Something my office prides itself on is helping these appeals get 
heard and settled to give Social Security recipients their due payment 
and peace of mind. Under this irresponsible Republican spending bill, 
which will cut half a billion dollars to Social Security, some 70,000 
appeals cases would cry out but nobody would be there to listen, nor 
would the Social Security Administration be able to clean up cases of 
fraud, abuse, and improper payment. This cut could actually cost the 
government more than it saves.
  It is no secret that the majority in this body seeks to privatize 
Social Security. Their top budget-maker has already proven that in his 
plan. This provision in the irresponsible public spending bill is 
simply another brick laid along the path to Social Security's 
destruction.
  President Bush proposed privatizing this program in 2005, and 
Americans said ``no.'' We were right to say `` no,'' as Social Security 
would have trillions in the stock market during the meltdown of the 
Bush recession lost. Instead, Social Security did not lose a single 
penny. That bears repeating. In the worst economic recession since the 
Great Depression, Social Security did not lose a single penny.
  We must protect Social Security from being raided for short-term 
political gains. Without it, almost half of all our seniors would be 
living in poverty. It makes up 76 percent of the total income for 
middle- and low-income seniors. But it is not just the seniors who 
depend on Social Security. Families who have lost loved ones are able 
to survive on their loved one's benefits, including about 6.5 million 
children. Raiding Social Security would hurt them, too.
  In 1934, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt uttered a quote that is 
as true today as it was 76 years ago. He said, ``We put those payroll 
contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and 
political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment 
benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap 
my Social Security program.''
  With that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. REHBERG. Madam Chair, the amendment proposes a net increase in 
budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under 
section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5, 112th Congress, which states: 
``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general 
appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the 
bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments 
proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority 
pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.''
  The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill 
in violation of such section.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard?
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I rise to speak against the point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized and is asked to confine 
his remarks to the point of order.

                              {time}  0030

  Mr. TONKO. I want to be clear so that everyone in this House and 
everyone watching knows what a $500 million cut to Social Security will 
do.
  On the point of order, Madam Chair, my amendment eliminates harmful 
budget cuts to Social Security, which actually saves more money in the 
long term than what is cut by the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York will confine his 
remarks to the point of order.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, on the point of order, the Social Security 
Administration has said that an additional cut in their funding would 
lead to many local offices closing their doors, stopping all claims 
processing, and not being able to answer the phones for a month.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlemen from New York and Montana will 
suspend.
  The Chair needs to hear the argument that the gentleman from New York 
is making.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, on the point of order, I am disappointed that 
the other side submitted a rule that doesn't allow an amendment to save 
this funding for Social Security and guarantee that checks go out on 
time;

[[Page 2185]]

but they can right this wrong right now. My amendment will ensure that 
checks go out on time. It will ensure that we continue to save billions 
by allowing Social Security to continue to go forward.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York will suspend. The 
gentleman is not confining his remarks to the point of order.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEINER. Madam Chair, I ask to be heard on the point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair will hear the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. Through all of the talking and interrupting, the 
gentleman was addressing the point of order directly.
  Madam Chair, the point of order alleges that, if Mr. Tonko's 
amendment is accepted, it will raise net budget authority in this line. 
In fact, as Mr. Tonko has said, if you will look at the net effect of 
reducing this line item, the net effect is to increase the amount of 
senior poverty, to increase the amount of seniors who are not getting 
Social Security checks on time and, therefore, raising the cost to 
society and ultimately raising the cost to the budget. In fact, unless 
you adopt the Tonko amendment, you will be agreeing not only to slash 
services to seniors but to increase the deficit by raising costs 
throughout the system.
  It is directly on point, and it is important to understand that the 
points that Mr. Tonko is making about the quality of the service under 
Social Security impacts directly on whether or not this is net higher 
budget authority, which it is not. It saves money to endorse the Tonko 
amendment. This House should consider it on its merits, ``yes'' or 
``no.'' This point of order should be ruled out of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Montana makes a point of order that the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York violates section 3(j)(3) of 
House Resolution 5.
  For the reasons stated in the previous ruling of the Chair, the point 
of order is sustained.
  The amendment is not in order.
  Mr. WEINER. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WEINER. Madam Chair, the support for your last three points of 
order rulings against Mr. Tonko has been relying upon the Budget 
Committee chairman's advice to the Chair. The Budget Committee chairman 
is someone who advocates on behalf of the majority for privatizing 
Social Security.
  To explain to the viewers and to this Chamber what that means, it is 
that he believes and the Republicans believe, if you take Social 
Security, which is a guaranteed program that can pay 100 percent of all 
of its benefits for at least 26 years, and if you invest a portion of 
that in the stock market, it is a better policy.
  It is on that person's advice that you have been ruling on the last 
few occasions that Mr. Tonko is out of order in trying to preserve that 
system that we have.
  If there is an important debate in the context of the American budget 
in the year 2011, it is the one that Mr. Tonko is trying to engage: It 
is privatizing Social Security, which is what this side of the aisle, 
Madam Chair, seeks to do, versus keeping this program the way it is--
the single most successful government program, arguably, in American 
history.
  What Mr. Tonko and many of us are trying to do is to preserve that 
program. Let's have this debate on this floor in an honest way. For 
months now, we've had this kind of strange shadow dance around the idea 
of the privatization of Social Security. Well, the chairman of the 
Budget Committee, not some fringe element of the Republican Party, has 
suggested in a book that they paraded around the country that they are 
going to offer the privatization of Social Security as the foundation 
for their budget.
  Now, for the last three amendments, Mr. Tonko has been trying to 
engage that debate, and the Chair has said, in using the best judgment 
of the Budget Committee, it seems that his policies would increase the 
net budget authority in the bill.
  Let's put that aside for a moment and have a real full-throated 
debate about whose side the different people in this Chamber are on 
with regard to this fundamental question of the security of the Social 
Security system. Let's review the bidding.
  On one side, you have Democrats who have created, supported, and 
fought for the Social Security program ever since it was passed in 1933 
and ever since the first check went out in 1935. We say it should be 
something that generation by generation is there for seniors. One group 
works; the seniors retire, and we support each other as part of that 
contract. It is fundamental to democratic values--I believe with a 
capital ``D'' but also with a small ``d.''
  Then you have my Republican friends. They say, You know what? In 
watching the stock market, we think it would be a good idea to take a 
portion of that Social Security trust fund and sock it into stocks and 
equities and bonds. They make an argument that actually has an element 
of truth to it. They say, if you'd invested every dime of Social 
Security into the stock market since the beginning of the Social 
Security system, you would have had more money in it today, because 
they say, Look. The stock market has gone way up since 1933.
  Yes, but as we all know, it didn't go like this (indicating). Let the 
stenographer note my hand going up. It went like this (indicating). Let 
the stenographer note a roller coaster shape.
  So I ask: Do you want to be one of the seniors who retires in the dip 
of the roller coaster?
  They apparently want to take that chance. My Republican friends want 
to take that chance. We Democrats say, No, this is not a program that 
seniors get wealthy on, but it's a safety net program--and it worked. 
It took, roughly, a 30 percent poverty level among seniors to the 
single digits that we have today.
  Then they say, Oh, no, but it will never be there in the future.
  The baby boomer generation, the biggest generation in American 
history. We've heard that one before. Huh-uh. The baby boomers had 
babies. Now they're the biggest generation in American history. Now 
they're paying in.
  By the way, do you know what helps the Social Security program more 
than anything else? People working, people paying Social Security 
taxes, people on the job, which are all the things that they're cutting 
in this very same budget.
  So, as Mr. Tonko tries to make that point and engage that argument, I 
see nothing but Members on this side of the aisle cowering under their 
desks and hiding behind Roberts Rules.
  When the Chair makes her rulings, listen carefully. She says she is 
relying on the best judgment of the chairman of the Budget Committee. 
Now, I like the chairman of the Budget Committee. He is a fine man--his 
judgment, not so much. I think that we should have this conversation 
because, if there is a fundamental difference here, it is on Social 
Security and its future. We want it to be there.
  So I say to people watching at this hour:
  First of all, have a warm glass of milk. There might be other ways to 
get to sleep. I would say to you, think very carefully about what the 
budget debate is about. It's very easy to lose sight of page this, line 
that. What it is really about is a fundamental difference in 
philosophy.
  On the Democratic side of this debate, we are saying let's try to 
build this country on a foundation of everyone having a safety net, of 
everyone having a basic opportunity, and none of us can really get too 
far ahead if we're leaving a whole bunch of people behind.
  This debate is not new, and I will let someone else continue it.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from New York has 
expired.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 
5 minutes.

[[Page 2186]]


  Ms. DeLAURO. I appreciate the comments from my colleague from New 
York.
  Madam Chair, I think that one thing that comes out, the clarity that 
comes out of tonight's debate on this bill, is to look at what, in 
fact, the American people have asked us to do. They have asked us to 
truly work together to address what their top priority is, which is 
creating jobs and fostering economic recovery.
  Again, as we listen to this debate that unfolded tonight, what we see 
is that, unfortunately, the majority's priorities are deeply out of 
touch with those of the country. Democrats are committed to reducing 
the deficit. We believe that we start by ending tax subsidies and 
special interest waste. We need to make programs accountable and end 
the ones that will not work.
  But the challenge is not whether we address the deficit and spending, 
or not to do that. The question is: Where do we start? Do we start with 
slashing special interest waste and ineffective programs, or do we 
start with what helps the middle class, our businesses, our working 
families, with children, and with seniors?
  We could have achieved cuts. We could have achieved cuts in spending 
in this continuing resolution.

                              {time}  0040

  It was where the majority decided to start to make cuts. What about 
those oil subsidies that we spoke about tonight, $40 billion over 5 
years, and eliminating the 10 tax breaks for the oil companies? What 
about the $7.4 billion we can save over 10 years by shutting down the 
current practice that allows multinational corporations to avoid paying 
their taxes? What about cutting agriculture subsidies in half and 
saving $8 billion? What about the $3 billion a year we can save by 
saying to the pharmaceutical companies that you can no longer pay to 
delay in order for us to get cheaper generic drugs to market because it 
raises the cost of health care?
  Let's do away with the $3 billion that we want to spend on an 
alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. That's about $61 
billion. That is approximately the amount of money that you are taking 
out of K-12 education, Pell grants where you lower the amount of 
maximum award that people could get, 9 million people trying to get an 
education, trying to be able to get that education in order to be able 
to get a job and to go to work, take care of their family, pay their 
taxes, and do the right thing. You say no.
  Another 1.3 million, you say no to the Supplemental Education 
Opportunity Grant so that they can no longer get education. You take 
218,000 kids off of Head Start. You lay off 55,000 teachers, you close 
down centers around the country, and you don't give youngsters the 
opportunity for early childhood education, and we know that that 
succeeds.
  You tell seniors, up to 10 million, meals will no longer be served to 
you because you're a homebound elder, you can't get out. We're not 
going to do anything about low-income energy assistance for you--you're 
on your own.
  It is, in fact, Washington to the country: Drop dead, is what you're 
saying to them, and all because there is no courage, no courage at all 
to go after the special interests and the tax subsidies that could 
overwhelmingly pay for the cuts that we need in order to be able to 
bring down the deficit.
  That is what's wrong with this bill tonight. The issue is where do 
you start. Do you start to cut in that reckless rush to slash without 
regard to the impact on our economy, without regard for our businesses 
to create jobs, or the middle class or working families who are being 
responsible? They're doing the best for their families today. They're 
trying to educate themselves for the future. You are hitting families 
with children and the elderly, and that is your starting point. It is 
not our starting point. Therein lies the difference of Democrats and 
Republicans in this continuing resolution debate.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair must remind Members that remarks must be 
addressed to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1847. Notwithstanding section 1101, and section 505 of 
     division D of Public Law 111-117, section 505 of division F 
     of Public Law 111-8 shall apply to funds appropriated by this 
     division.
       Sec. 1848. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration, Salaries and Expenses'' shall be 
     $459,653,000, of which $138,928,000 shall be for compliance 
     assistance programs: Provided, That the amounts included 
     under such heading in division D of Public Law 111-117 shall 
     be applied to funds appropriated by this Act by substituting 
     ``$89,502,000'' for ``$104,393,000''.
       Sec. 1849. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Health and Human Services, National 
     Institutes of Health, Office of the Director'' shall be 
     $1,128,800,000, and the fifth proviso under such heading in 
     division D of Public Law 111-117 shall be applied to funds 
     appropriated by this Act by substituting ``$495,609,000'' for 
     ``$544,109,000''.
       Sec. 1850. The amount provided by section 1101 for 
     ``Department of Health and Human Services, National 
     Institutes of Health'' is reduced by $639,463,000 through a 
     pro rata reduction in all of the Institutes, Centers, and 
     Office of the Director accounts within ``Department of Health 
     and Human Services, National Institutes of Health'', based on 
     the total funding levels for each such Institute, Center, and 
     Office of the Director accounts (excluding the Common Fund). 
     In addition, the Director of the National Institutes of 
     Health shall ensure at least a total of 9,000 new competing 
     research grants are awarded in fiscal year 2011 from all 
     Institutes, Centers, and Office of the Director accounts 
     within the ``Department of Health and Human Services, 
     National Institutes of Health''.
       Sec. 1851. Of the unobligated balances available for 
     ``Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for 
     Children and Families, Refugee and Entrant Assistance'' in 
     division D of Public Law 111-117, $77,000,000 is rescinded.


                  Amendment No. 221 Offered by Ms. Lee

  Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 306, after line 7, insert the following:
       Sec. 1852. (a)(1) Section 4002(b)(1) of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 
     note) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``80'' and inserting 
     ``131''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``20'' and inserting 
     ``34''.
       (2) Section 4002(f) of such Act is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(3) Rules relating to additional weeks of first-tier 
     emergency unemployment compensation.--
       ``(A) In general.--If a State determines that 
     implementation of the increased entitlement to first-tier 
     emergency unemployment compensation by reason of the 
     amendments made by section 1852(a)(1) of the Full-Year 
     Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 would unduly delay the 
     prompt payment of emergency unemployment compensation under 
     this title, such State may elect to pay second-tier, third-
     tier, or fourth-tier emergency unemployment compensation (or 
     a combination of those tiers) prior to the payment of such 
     increased first-tier emergency unemployment compensation 
     until such time as such State determines that such increased 
     first-tier emergency unemployment compensation may be paid 
     without undue delay.
       ``(B) Special rules.--If a State makes an election under 
     subparagraph (A) which results in--
       ``(i) the payment of second-tier (but not third-tier) 
     emergency unemployment compensation prior to the payment of 
     increased first-tier emergency unemployment compensation, 
     then, for purposes of determining whether an account may be 
     augmented for third-tier emergency unemployment compensation 
     under subsection (d), such State shall treat the date of 
     exhaustion of such increased first-tier emergency 
     unemployment compensation as the date of exhaustion of 
     second-tier emergency unemployment compensation, if such date 
     is later than the date of exhaustion of the second-tier 
     emergency unemployment compensation; or
       ``(ii) the payment of third-tier emergency unemployment 
     compensation prior to the payment of increased first-tier 
     emergency unemployment compensation, then, for purposes of 
     determining whether an account may be augmented for fourth-
     tier emergency unemployment compensation under subsection 
     (e), such State shall treat the date of exhaustion of such 
     increased first-tier emergency unemployment compensation as 
     the date of exhaustion of third-tier emergency unemployment 
     compensation, if such date is later than the date of 
     exhaustion of the third-tier emergency unemployment 
     compensation.

[[Page 2187]]

       ``(4) Coordination of modifications (relating to additional 
     first-tier emergency unemployment compensation) with extended 
     compensation.--Notwithstanding an election under section 
     4001(e) by a State to provide for the payment of emergency 
     unemployment compensation prior to extended compensation, 
     such State may pay extended compensation to an otherwise 
     eligible individual prior to any additional emergency 
     unemployment compensation under subsection (b) (payable by 
     reason of the amendments made by section 1852(a)(1) of the 
     Emergency Unemployment Compensation Expansion Act of 2011), 
     if such individual claimed extended compensation for at least 
     1 week of unemployment after the exhaustion of emergency 
     unemployment compensation under subsection (b) (as such 
     subsection was in effect on the day before the date of the 
     enactment of this paragraph), (c), (d), or (e).''.
       (3) Section 4004(e)(1) of such Act, as amended by section 
     501(b) of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance 
     Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (Public Law 
     111-312), is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``and'' at the end; 
     and
       (B) by inserting after subparagraph (G) the following:
       ``(H) the amendments made by section 1852(a)(1) of the 
     Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011; and''.
       (4) Section 4007(b)(3) of such Act, as amended by section 
     501(a)(1)(C) of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance 
     Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (Public Law 
     111-312) is amended by striking ``June 9, 2012'' and 
     inserting ``September 22, 2012''.
       (b) The Secretary of Labor may prescribe any operating 
     instructions or regulations necessary to carry out this 
     section and the amendments made by this section.
       (c) The amendments made by this section shall take effect 
     as if included in the enactment of the Unemployment 
     Compensation Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-205), 
     except that no additional first-tier emergency unemployment 
     compensation shall be payable by virtue of the amendments 
     made by subsection (a)(1) with respect to any week of 
     unemployment commencing before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (d)(1) The budgetary effects of this section, for the 
     purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 
     2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest 
     statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' 
     for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
     Record by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, 
     provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 
     vote on passage.
       (2) This section--
       (A) is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 
     (Public Law 111-139; 2 U.S.C. 933(g)); and
       (B) is designated as an emergency pursuant to section 
     3(c)(1) of H. Res. 5 (112th Congress) and as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 
     (111th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2010''.

  Mr. REHBERG. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, first, let me just say that I offer this 
amendment in support of the unemployed workers across the country who 
are truly living in a state of emergency and who desperately need our 
assistance like right now.
  This CR really reminds me of a CR that reflects survival of the 
fittest. Of the nearly 600 amendments to the continuing resolution that 
have been proposed or considered so far, this amendment is the only 
one, mind you, that deals with the problem of the unemployed directly. 
Nowhere in the proposed continuing resolution does the majority try to 
address the needs of the unemployed, whether to provide benefits or to 
help create jobs. In fact, the underlying resolution is estimated to 
cost more than 800,000 private and public sector jobs. The proposal 
before us would even cut $2.5 billion from job training programs that 
directly assist the unemployed in getting the skills that they need to 
find new jobs and get back to work.
  The national unemployment rate stands at 9 percent. In California, in 
my home State, it's 12.5 percent. In Ohio, where the Speaker is from, 
it's 9.6 percent. And of course, African Americans and Latinos and 
teenagers have far higher unemployment rates of 15.5, 11.5, and 25.7 
percent respectively. Altogether, 13.9 million people are looking for 
work across the country, 6.2 million of them are classified as long-
term unemployed, and yet the Republican response is to cut job training 
programs. Just think about that for a moment. How in the world does 
cutting job training programs put people back to work? Madam Chair, I 
really can't figure out the logic of that. And I wonder how Republicans 
will explain it to their unemployed constituents. You have unemployed 
constituents, also.
  And so my amendment, on the other hand, is really a very commonsense 
response to the unemployment problem in our country. This amendment 
would add language to the continuing resolution from a bill that I 
introduced with Representative Bobby Scott, the Emergency Unemployment 
Compensation Act.
  Quite simply, this amendment and my bill would provide an additional 
14 weeks of benefits to the existing tier one of the Emergency 
Unemployment Compensation Program in order to help unemployed workers 
who have exhausted their current benefits. These people have hit the 
wall.
  My amendment includes an emergency designation pursuant to the rules 
of the House and would not trigger statutory PAYGO rules. This is an 
emergency. Every single Member of this body has unemployed people in 
their district, people who just want a chance to get a job, to work 
hard and to sustain their families. That's all. They just want to be 
part of this American dream. But for every job opening in this country, 
there are 4.7 unemployed workers seeking to fill it. Let me repeat 
that. One job for every 4.7 unemployed workers.
  It's clear from that statistic that unemployment is not a problem of 
self-motivation; it is a symptom of a job deficit. It will take time to 
close this deficit, and I believe it will require continued government 
investments to do so, but in the meantime, people have to survive. We 
have a moral obligation to help the long-term unemployed get through 
this crisis by extending their benefits now.

                              {time}  0050

  The response to the bill and my amendment has been, quite frankly, 
overwhelming. People from my district and also people from your 
districts have been calling my office nonstop in support of this bill, 
wanting to know when the Republican majority will finally deal with the 
problem of the long-term unemployed. They want to see a real plan from 
Republicans and Democrats that will create jobs and jump-start the 
economy. They don't want to hear the Speaker casually dismiss job loss 
by saying, ``So be it.'' In fact, in 7 weeks, we haven't seen one 
single effort to create a job. We haven't seen any legislation that 
would do that.
  Now it's your chance to step up to the plate and prove to them that 
your priorities don't just lie with the rich and the well connected. 
Many of the unemployed are experiencing poverty for the first time as 
they literally try to make a dollar out of 15 cents. If we don't act 
now, many of them will fall into poverty.
  So I ask my Republican colleagues: If you can insist on giveaways to 
the wealthy, why can't you stand up for the unemployed who need our 
help the most? Extending unemployment benefits is not only the right 
thing to do, but it also creates and contributes economic growth and 
job creation, because unemployed workers put what little they have back 
into the economy as they just try to get by day by day.
  I know my colleagues have reserved a point of order. And I urge you, 
don't resort to parliamentary maneuvers to block help for the 
unemployed. Join me and our 66 cosponsors, and let's provide an 
additional 14 weeks of benefits for those who have hit the wall.
  Mr. REHBERG. I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, we must acknowledge that passing 
a continuing resolution will do nothing to create jobs. We are stuck 
with an unemployment rate of 9 percent and have left the long-term 
unemployed who have exhausted their unemployment benefits out in the 
cold.

[[Page 2188]]

  Representative Lee's amendment makes it clear that some of us have 
not forgotten about these individuals and their families. The amendment 
will ensure that these hardworking Americans will have access to 
unemployment benefits during this historic economic recession. It's not 
only the right thing to do, but it will also help our economy.
  Economists estimate that the U.S. economy grows by over $1.60 for 
every $1 the government spends on unemployment compensation because 
unemployed persons usually spend all of their benefits quickly. This 
$1.60 is in stark contrast to the 20 cents in economic activity 
generated by some of the tax cuts we passed last month. Put simply, 
unemployment compensation is one of the most efficient and effective 
ways to stimulate the economy. But extending benefits is only one part 
of a comprehensive approach that is needed to get the long-term 
unemployed back to work.
  Many of the Americans who have lost their jobs have lost jobs that 
are not coming back, jobs that have been shipped overseas or jobs that 
now require new skills. So while unemployment compensation is the 
temporary solution, we need to simultaneously be providing job training 
programs and educational training to help American workers develop the 
new in-demand skills. Unfortunately, this resolution actually cuts job 
training programs.
  We face very difficult choices when it comes to the Federal budget, 
and there's no easy solution to solve our budget problems. When I first 
came to Congress in 1993, we considered a budget that put an end to 
fiscal recklessness. We passed a budget that, by the end of the 8 years 
of the Clinton administration, would not only have eliminated the 
deficit but had a projected surplus large enough to have paid off the 
entire national debt held by the public 2 years ago. That means we 
would have owed no money to Japan, China, and Saudi Arabia. That budget 
also led to record job growth, but it required tough choices; and in 
fact, dozens of Members who voted for that budget lost their seats in 
the next election.
  In contrast, under the Bush administration, we passed popular but 
huge tax cuts without paying for them, a prescription drug benefit 
without paying for it, a $700 billion bailout without paying for it, 
and cut taxes in the middle of two wars, all of which put us in the 
economic ditch. Now, in order to get the present deficits under 
control, we are going to have to make some tough choices. 
Unfortunately, at the end of last year, we made a move in the wrong 
direction when Congress passed a huge tax cut bill, at a total 2-year 
cost of $800 billion, without paying for it. To put that number in 
perspective, $800 billion exceeds the general fund budget of all 50 
States. That's right. Add it up. If you add up all the general fund 
budgets of the 50 States, it comes up to a total of $650 billion, less 
than the cost of the $800 billion tax cut bill.
  Before that bill was passed, many of us asked how we're going to pay 
for it, but nobody wanted to answer it. Everybody who supported the 
bill focused solely on the nice tax cuts. But now we're going to debate 
a long list of spending cuts in the proposed resolution to show how 
we're paying for it. The safety net is attacked: low-income energy 
assistance; Women, Infants and Children's nutrition; the health 
centers; housing; and investments in our future, like the National 
Science Foundation, NASA, Pell Grants, job training, clean water, high-
speed rail. These are the things that we're cutting to pay for some of 
last year's tax cut bill. Now the American people are seeing how we're 
going to pay for it.
  Last year we passed the tax cuts that gave great benefits to 
multimillionaires, and now we're paying for it by inflicting pain on 
vulnerable portions of our population. We can do better, and that's why 
we need to fight against these draconian cuts and programs that are so 
important to so many people and, instead, provide assistance where it 
helps not only individuals but helps the economy, as the Lee amendment 
does.
  The American people deserve better than this resolution. We should 
support the Lee amendment but oppose the underlying legislation, and I 
urge my colleagues to do just that.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. REHBERG. I make a point of order against the amendment because it 
proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an 
appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The 
rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
  The amendment directly amends existing law.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to speak on the point of 
order? The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that the amendment proposes directly to change 
existing law; as such, it constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I rise in disappointment that the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) was not made in 
order.
  While the Republicans cut the heart out of necessary, needed programs 
that would help the people who have lost their jobs--and they've lost 
these jobs through no fault of their own--it actually stuns me how 
unaware they are that it is our very obligation in this House to help 
make families whole again, to help them do what they have to do when 
they can't find work. But of course it's up to the Barbara Lees and the 
Bobby Scotts of this Congress to insist that we provide a lifeline for 
hardworking families who have exhausted all of their benefits. It is 
particularly shameful, Madam Chair, that this is something we're even 
questioning after giving billions of dollars in deficit-busting tax 
cuts to the very wealthiest.
  After extending those tax breaks for the affluent, how can they say 
that we can't afford to extend unemployment insurance for families 
struggling to find jobs in this economy? The Republican leadership has 
given a lot of lip service to creating jobs, but they've yet to bring 
even one jobs bill to the floor. Now they have a chance to support 
emergency relief to millions of working families, a chance to extend 
unemployment benefits to help struggling families which will also help 
end the recession because, as it was just said a minute ago, getting 
people back to work will get our economy going again because working is 
actually the first crucial step in reducing the deficit.
  Actually, unemployment insurance is a proven economic booster. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office, for every $1 spent on 
unemployment insurance, economic activity increases by $2.

                              {time}  0100

  In fact, the CBO has found unemployment insurance to be one of the 
most cost effective and fast-acting ways to stimulate the economy.
  There's no shortage of work ethic in America, Madam Chair. There is a 
shortage of work, however. So where is the majority party's jobs bill? 
Where is their support for the millions of people who have exhausted 
all their emergency unemployment benefits and are desperately looking 
for employment?
  I urge my colleagues, provide additional unemployment benefits for 
those whose benefits have run out. And I suggest that the best thing 
you could do right now is help create jobs for America.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, let me just say, providing unemployment 
benefits for people struggling to survive, it really should not be 
subject to any parliamentary point of order. I just wanted to say 
that's really a shame and disgrace.

[[Page 2189]]

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. I move to strike the last word, Madam Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. I won't speak for 5 minutes. I've been sitting here 
waiting for my amendment to come up, which it will in a couple of hours 
probably. But I have to make one comment on everything I'm hearing on 
the floor.
  We hear amendment after amendment to extend unemployment benefits to 
the unemployed in a time when we have 9 percent unemployment, and 
they're struck down because there's no pay-for. The amendment provides 
no other means of paying for the unemployment insurance.
  For the last 50 or 60 years it was never considered necessary, in a 
time of recession and high unemployment, that in order to extend 
unemployment benefits you had to find someplace else to pay for it. It 
was automatic emergency spending until this Republican Congress.
  I hear amendment after amendment that's denied. We can't even 
formulate certain amendments because we can only increase, not even 
increase spending, we can only restore draconian spending cuts on human 
services that are necessary for our people if we reduce other human 
services.
  But the tax cuts that we've seen, the huge tax cuts of hundreds and 
hundreds of billions of dollars for our wealthiest citizens at a time 
when the top 1 percent of our people, the richest 1 percent of our 
people have 24 percent of the income and almost half of the wealth in 
the country, we can't talk about increasing or restoring those tax 
cuts. Those tax cuts are a given.
  Madam Chairman, this is the culmination when we see $100 billion of 
cuts in spending, in non-defense discretionary spending, spending on 
transportation that is necessary if our economy is to be competitive, 
spending on research and development that is necessary if we're going 
to be able to create jobs, spending on schools and education and 
housing that is necessary for our people, spending on job training so 
our people can work, spending on unemployment insurance so they can 
eat. All of these things must be cut in order that the wealthiest 
people have tax cuts, in order that the tax cuts for the oil companies 
not be disturbed.
  All of this is the culmination of a 30-year campaign by the 
Republican Party to starve the beast. Ronald Reagan's Budget Director, 
David Stockman, I believe coined the phrase ``starve the beast.'' He 
said, he pointed out that if you come to the American people and you 
say, We want to reduce certain services, we want less money for 
transportation, the voters don't go along with that. If you say, We 
want less money for education, the voters don't go along with that. And 
if you say, We want less money for most things that are necessary, the 
voters won't say yes.
  But if you deliberately create a crisis, if you deliberately create a 
situation where there is no money, by cutting taxes of the rich so that 
they don't pay their fair share, you can create a crisis, and then you 
come and say we can't afford this. We've got a budget deficit. We must 
reduce unemployment insurance. We must reduce schools and housing and 
transportation and the competitiveness of our economy and the jobs 
available for our people. We must reduce them because there is no 
money. Then you can get away with it. And that is the plot that the 
Republican Party has been advancing for 30 years, and today we are 
seeing the culmination of that. Today and in this Congress.
  But remember what creates this necessity for these drastic cuts: The 
fact that we are unwilling to restore the tax cuts for the richest 
portion of our population. We are unwilling to take away the tax breaks 
for the oil companies. We are unwilling to tax the large corporations 
as we used to. We are unwilling to have the rich pay as high a 
percentage of their income in taxes as their secretaries. That's what's 
really at stake here.
  But this debate is structured by the rules which have been imposed on 
this House that prevent us from bringing this all together in one 
debate. Unfortunately, it is not in order. The chairman ruled it's out 
of order if someone proposes to pay for a restoration of unemployment 
insurance by increasing a tax or by cutting war funding because it's 
not in the same bill. It's not in the same section of the bill.
  So the American people's representatives have our hands tied because 
we are prisoners of the construct constructed by the Republican Party 
that says, let the rich have their tax cuts, let the oil companies have 
their tax breaks, let the multinational companies export the jobs 
overseas and pay no taxes. We'll pay for it by robbing the American 
people of transportation, of highways, of bridges, of unemployment 
insurance, of job creation, of education. That's what we're dealing 
with here, and the debate should be looked on in the context of the 
culmination of that 30-year plot by the Republicans which we're seeing, 
which was freely admitted by a lot of people, starting with Ronald 
Reagan's budget director who started it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      TITLE IX--LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

       Sec. 1901. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``House of Representatives, Salaries and Expenses'' shall be 
     $1,288,299,072.


               Amendment No. 108 Offered by Mr. Whitfield

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 306, line 11, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,500,000)''.
       Page 359, line 16, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $1,500,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, this amendment is very simple. We're 
going through this process, or the continuing resolution, and we're 
trying to reduce spending to help bring down the Federal debt, which is 
now around $14 trillion.
  I might also say that I would certainly want to commend Chairman 
Rogers, ranking member Norm Dicks, and Speaker Boehner for allowing 
unlimited amendments to this continuing resolution. It certainly is an 
open process. And it's my understanding that over 700 amendments were 
printed in the Record to give Members an opportunity to represent their 
districts and try to bring spending under control. And I might say, 
that's in direct contrast to when the health care bill was brought to 
the floor in the last Congress, a bill, 2,400 pages, that had direct 
impact on the health care throughout America--not one amendment was in 
order on the floor. So there certainly is a contrast here in the way 
we're proceeding with the people's business.
  But this amendment basically simply removes $1.5 million from the 
greening of the Capitol project. There was a total of about $7 million 
in this project. The project is basically over with, and there is 
approximately $1.5 million left. If we go on and eliminate the program 
now, that $1.5 million can be put directly to reducing the debt.
  Now, some people would say, well, my gosh, $7 million is not much 
money. But, back in March of 2009, I wrote a letter to the Architect of 
the Capitol because one of the parts of the Greening of the Capitol was 
to stop buying coal for the Capitol power plant. And when they stopped 
buying coal for the Capitol power plant, a coal mine in West Virginia 
that was providing that coal closed down and those jobs were lost.
  The Architect of the Capitol, in responding to my letter, also 
indicated that by switching away from coal, the annual cost to the 
taxpayers of America went up between $7 million and $8 million a year, 
and that's an ongoing expense. And that does not include the conversion 
that had to take place with the Capitol power plant, and we know that 
at least $1.5 million was spent on the conversion. We do not know what

[[Page 2190]]

additional funds were spent, but the Architect of the Capitol said 
additional funds were spent. And I might add, there was never any 
discussion about this on the House floor. There was never any notice 
given to any of the Members about this. But it came about simply 
because Speaker Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid wrote a letter to 
the Architect of the Capitol directing him to do so.

                              {time}  0110

  So all we are doing with this amendment is trying to reduce our 
Federal debt by $1.5 million. The Greening of the Capitol program is 
basically over with. In fact, the only thing they are doing now, 
according to the information I have, is they are calling around to 
congressional district offices to go down there to see about buying 
more up-to-date light bulbs. So I would respectfully request that the 
Members support this amendment.

                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, March 4, 2009.
     Mr. Stephen Ayers,
     Acting Architect of the Capitol,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Ayers: There have been several articles written 
     about the Capitol Power Plant in recent weeks and I have had 
     several groups in my office lobbying to stop using coal at 
     the plant. I would appreciate your providing me some basic 
     facts about the plant.
       1. When was it constructed, what was its initial cost, and 
     when did it begin operations?
       2. What was/is the rated electrical capacity of the plant?
       3. How much coal was burned at the plant during its peak 
     years of operation?
       4. When was natural gas first used as a fuel in the plant, 
     and what was the cost to convert the plant so that natural 
     gas could be used?
       5. What is the mix of fuel used today at the plant, in 
     percentages?
       6. What has been the additional cost or cost-saving 
     associated with the use of a mix of natural gas and coal, 
     instead of coal only?
       7. What is the timeline for converting the plant to natural 
     gas only, and what will be the cost of the conversion?
       8. What is the projected additional cost or cost-saving 
     over the next five years, by converting the plant to operate 
     only on natural gas?
       9. What type of coal is presently burned at the plant, and 
     where is it produced?
       10. Does the plant produce electricity, or only steam and 
     cooled water for the Capitol complex?
       11. If electricity is produced, what amount of income does 
     the sale of the electricity produce annually?
       12. If electricity is not produced, why not?
       13. If electricity is not produced, what would it cost to 
     convert the plant so that electricity could be produced and 
     sold, and what would be the projected annual income from 
     those sales?
       14. What emissions controls are in place at the plant, when 
     were they added, and at what cost?
       15. Is the plant presently in compliance with federal Clean 
     Air Act regulations?
       16. If the plant is not in compliance with emissions 
     limitations, what additional controls might be needed to 
     continue to use coal or a mix of coal and natural gas, and 
     what are the estimated capital costs of those additional 
     controls?
       Thank you very much for your attention to this request. I 
     will look forward to your response.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Ed Whitfield,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____



                                 The Architect of the Capitol,

                                   Washington, DC, March 20, 2009.
     Hon. Ed Whitfield,
      House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Whitfield: Thank you for your interest in 
     the U.S. Capitol Power Plant. As a matter of background, 
     Congress authorized $1,545,975.65 for the design and 
     construction of the Capitol Power Plant on April 28, 1904, 
     and it was completed and began operations in 1910. 
     Originally, the plant was constructed to produce electricity. 
     However, since 1951 it has not produced electricity and only 
     generates steam and chilled water for the Capitol Complex.
       The Capitol Power Plant is currently capable of using three 
     fuels; coal, natural gas, and fuel oil. In a series of 
     projects starting in 1989, individual boilers within the 
     plant have been modified to be capable of burning natural 
     gas. In Fiscal Year 2008, the fuel consumed by the plant was 
     65% natural gas and 35% coal. The largest amount of coal 
     burned during the last 20 years was in 1993, when the plant 
     used 47,393 short tons. The plant currently burns low sulfur 
     bituminous coal which is purchased through the General 
     Services Administration and the Defense Energy Support 
     Center. The following table provides details on the fuel 
     usage and costs for Fiscal Year 2008:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Energy
                 Utility type                     (MMBTU)      Cost ($)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Gas...................................      975,046  $12,653,649
Oil...........................................          120        2,291
Coal..........................................      528,489    2,444,511
                                               -------------------------
    Heating Energy Total......................    1,503,655   15,100,451
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       The Capitol Power Plant operates in full compliance with 
     current Federal Clean Air Act regulations. The plant utilizes 
     two reverse air bag houses, installed in the early 1980's, to 
     control particulate emissions. Emissions are further 
     controlled via fuel specifications and combustion controls.
       On February 26, 2009, the Office of Architect of the 
     Capitol (AOC) received a letter signed by the Speaker of the 
     House and the Senate Majority Leader directing a reduction in 
     the use of coal at the plant, in favor of natural gas. Our 
     preliminary estimates indicate that operating the plant using 
     100% natural gas will cost an additional $5-$7 million 
     annually in fuel costs and will require a one-time capital 
     investment needed to equip the plant. We are currently 
     preparing preliminary designs with cost estimates for the 
     capital investment requirement.
       The AOC has undertaken a comprehensive strategic planning 
     process for the Capitol Power Plant. Leveraging the skills of 
     expert consultants and in-house staff, the AOC is analyzing a 
     number of options for the plant, including several scenarios 
     which utilize cogeneration systems to generate electricity. 
     Those options are also being reviewed by the National Academy 
     of Sciences and later will be reviewed by the Department of 
     Energy. We expect to publish a final report in Summer 2009.
       Should you have further questions about the Capitol Power 
     Plant or any of AOC's activities, please do not hesitate to 
     contact me at 228-1793.
           Sincerely,
                                            Stephen T. Ayers, AIA,
                                  Acting Architect of the Capitol.

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEINER. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WEINER. I'm a big fan of Mr. Whitfield, but he misses the big 
thing here; and that is that we're in the portion of this budget where 
the legislative branch is funded. Isn't this the opportunity to end the 
funding for the health care plans that so many Members of Congress get? 
So many Members of Congress get health care plans, like the 9 million 
Federal employees and their workers where they get a booklet twice a 
year with different choices. And since there's so many workers, they 
are aggregated together to be able to hold down costs for all of them. 
This is exactly what the new health care plan that is going into effect 
for the American people seeks to do.
  Now, the Democrats have said let's extend that to all Americans. 
Let's give everyone that opportunity. And my Republican friends say, 
no, that's government-controlled health care. This is your chance. 
Don't blow it.
  Mr. Whitfield is an important, prominent member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, one of the most learned members of that committee. 
This is our chance to say, you know what, we're so against government-
run health care that we want to get rid of the Federal Employees Health 
Benefit Plan. This is your moment. This is the time. Let's do it. Come 
on. Let's put your money where your mouth is, Madam Chair.
  I mean, the problem here is that if you think about what is going on, 
with all of the debate about health care and the Big Government-run 
health care plan, it's really not that. It's really taking the number 
of uninsured people, giving them subsidies and incentives to go out and 
get private insurance. And then, since more people are going to have 
it, all of our costs come down. The aggregation that goes on in 
insurance markets, the automobile insurance, for example, and Members 
of Congress take advantage of that.
  Now, I should point out the mythology that there is some fancy health 
care plan. No. We're in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan. We 
get this booklet every 6 months. We choose the plan that's best. It's 
like the exchange is going to be in 2013 and 2014.
  So here it is. We're on the floor. This is your opportunity. And I 
respect Mr. Whitfield. I don't know much about this provision of what 
coal-powered plants there are here, but I do know that's here. Why 
don't you step up and

[[Page 2191]]

say, We're opposed to government-run health care for Members of 
Congress?
  You know, it's funny. There was actually a Member of Congress on the 
Republican side--and I forget his name, you will forgive me--who 
campaigned all summer and fall against what they call ObamaCare and how 
outrageous it is, and he is going to get to work on doing away with it. 
They had orientation for the new Members of Congress, and he stands up 
and says, When do I get my government health care plan?
  And when we started looking and we started asking questions, it 
turned out that there are a lot of Members of Congress who railed 
against other people getting health coverage but really like that they 
get it. As they should. No one should give up their health care plan. 
People should get it.
  There was even a member of the New York delegation, when asked about 
it, Are you going to take the government health care plan since you 
campaigned so hard against it? And he said, Of course. What happens if 
I have an accident and I need health care? Where am I going to get it? 
Exactly.
  The same is true for a citizen who works hard. And, by the way, of 
the uninsured, 75 percent of them have full-time jobs. It's not like 
they are slacking. They are hardworking Americans. And so the health 
care plan that we provided, like the Members of Congress, their staffs, 
and 9 million Federal employees have, says, you know what, the more of 
us are covered, the more we can control costs just like what the health 
care plan does.
  And here it is, the moment has arrived in the bill, and the silence 
is deafening. You could probably save a few shekels doing that. 
Couldn't you, Mr. Honda? You could probably save a few dollars if you 
eliminated that. Maybe this is the time to do it. And instead, we are 
going to hear about an amendment.
  And Mr. Whitfield may be right, I don't know. I will have to figure 
out how to vote on that. I'm not up on the coal-powered plants here. 
But it's certainly that opportunity. I would hope all of those people 
who deride government-funded, government-run health care can come down 
here. And while you're at it, I guess you are going to de-fund 
Medicare. I read that in the paper today. That's the next thing. 
Government-run health care. Well, this is kind of your moment to do it.
  Be consistent. Be honest. What this is really about is that we took a 
plan that is basically founded on free-market principles and said, you 
know what, the employer-based model, we're going to try to have more 
people get employer-based insurance.
  But if you are really honest and consistent, this is the moment in 
the bill that I would hope our Republican colleagues come down 5 
minutes at a time and say, Let's get rid of that dastardly Federal 
Employee Health Benefits Plan that the legislative branch benefits 
from. Or at least come down and say, I'm taking it and here is why I'm 
contradicting what I said in the campaign. This is our time to do it, 
and I would hope we would.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. In the interest of time, Madam Chair, I just want to 
rise in support of the amendment by the gentleman from Kentucky. I 
think it's a good amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to support 
it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HONDA. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HONDA. Madam Chair, just a word against the amendment.
  The amendment really actually reduces the House of Representatives' 
budget by $1.5 million, which will bring the total reduction to $82 
million from fiscal year 2010.
  The gentleman purports that this amendment cuts energy reduction 
programs when in actuality that is not what his amendment does. He 
makes a general cut that will affect office budgets and the services of 
the House.
  So I just want to be clear on this. It is a shortsighted strategy to 
handicap the legislative branch of government by reducing our own 
staffs here. We are an equal branch of government and must effectively 
serve our own constituents.
  Not only is the gentleman's amendment flawed, but the motive of his 
amendment is flawed. Energy reduction programs save the government and 
taxpayers money. For example, the House has installed nearly 13,000 
energy saving compact fluorescent light bulbs, or CFLs, throughout the 
House complex, saving more than 1.1 million kilowatt hours annually. 
This project has already saved taxpayers up to now $446,000 and is 
projected to produce an annual savings of $178,000 annually into the 
future. So we are getting a return on our investments.
  Furthermore, consolidating Member office computer services has 
dramatically saved energy and taxpayer money. This project has already 
saved taxpayers over $1 million and is projected to save nearly 
$800,000 annually, returning back to us a return on investment.
  All told, energy reduction programs for the House have already saved 
taxpayers $3.2 million and is projected to save nearly $9 million 
annually once it is completed.
  While I know that cuts are needed, Madam Chair, I would prefer if the 
Congress focused its time on policies that actually accomplished 
deficit reduction. Now, if the gentleman wants to cut energy funding 
and we're looking at our budget, it's really the Architect of the 
Capitol's budget. So there is a misfocus on the target. But if the 
gentleman wants to really cut energy funding, he should join this side 
of the aisle and call for the end of the Big Oil subsidies.
  Let's stop the message amendments and work towards real deficit 
reduction.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 1902.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``House of Representatives, House Leadership Offices'' shall 
     be $24,861,969, and the levels under that heading shall be as 
     follows:
       (1) For the Office of the Speaker, $4,877,851.
       (2) For the Office of the Majority Floor Leader, 
     $2,432,808.
       (3) For the Office of the Minority Floor Leader, 
     $4,378,238.
       (4) For the Office of the Majority Whip, $2,105,373.
       (5) For the Office of the Minority Whip, $1,628,873.
       (6) For the Speaker's Office for Legislative Floor 
     Activities, $497,619.
       (7) For the Republican Steering Committee, $940,674.
       (8) For the Republican Conference, $1,679,970.
       (9) For the Republican Policy Committee, $344,485.
       (10) For the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, 
     $1,319,273.
       (11) For the Democratic Caucus, $1,659,696.
       (12) For nine minority employees, $1,487,455.
       (13) For the training and program development--majority, 
     $277,807.
       (14) For the training and program development--minority, 
     $277,439.
       (15) For Cloakroom Personnel--majority, $477,469.
       (16) For Cloakroom Personnel--minority, $476,939.
       Sec. 1903.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``House of Representatives, Members' Representational 
     Allowances'' shall be $613,052,000.
       Sec. 1904.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``House of Representatives, Committee Employees, Standing 
     Committees, Special and Select'' shall be $132,449,103, the 
     period of applicability referred to in the proviso under that 
     heading shall be December 31, 2012, and none of the funds 
     made available under that heading may be used for committee 
     room upgrading.
       Sec. 1905.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations'' 
     shall be $28,483,000, and the period of applicability 
     referred to in the proviso under that heading shall be 
     December 31, 2012.
       Sec. 1906.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``House of Representatives, Salaries, Officers and 
     Employees'' shall be $184,386,000, and the level under that 
     heading--
       (1) for the Office of the Clerk shall be $26,568,000;

[[Page 2192]]

       (2) for the Office of the Sergeant at Arms shall be 
     $8,221,000; and
       (3) for the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer 
     shall be $121,676,000.
       Sec. 1907.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``House of Representatives, Allowances and Expenses'' shall 
     be $305,067,000, and the level under that heading--
       (1) for employee tuition assistance benefit payments shall 
     be $0;
       (2) for employee child care benefit payments shall be $0;
       (3) for Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery shall be 
     $17,000,000, of which $5,000,000 shall remain available until 
     expended;
       (4) for the Wounded Warrior Program shall be $2,000,000; 
     and
       (5) for Energy Demonstration Projects shall be $0.
       Sec. 1908.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Joint Items, Joint Economic Committee'' shall be 
     $4,364,500.
       Sec. 1909.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Joint Items, Joint Committee on Taxation'' shall be 
     $10,551,150.
       Sec. 1910.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Capitol Police, Salaries'' shall be $277,688,000.
       Sec. 1911.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Office of Compliance, Salaries and Expenses'' shall be 
     $4,085,150.
       Sec. 1912.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Congressional Budget Office, Salaries and Expenses'' shall 
     be $42,761,000.
       Sec. 1913. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     notwithstanding section 1101, the level and period of 
     availability for each item under the heading ``Architect of 
     the Capitol'' shall be determined in accordance with an 
     allocation plan submitted by the Architect of the Capitol and 
     approved by the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and Senate, except that--
       (1) the aggregate level for all items under that heading 
     may not exceed $498,491,000; and
       (2) no amounts may remain available for any item under such 
     plan beyond September 30, 2015.
       (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to ``Architect of the 
     Capitol, Senate Office Buildings''.
       Sec. 1914.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Library of Congress, Salaries and Expenses'' shall be 
     $417,189,000, the amount applicable under the fourth proviso 
     under that heading shall be $4,815,000, and the amount 
     applicable under the fifth and seventh provisos under that 
     heading shall be $0.
       Sec. 1915.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Library of Congress, Copyright Office, Salaries and 
     Expenses'' shall be $52,914,670, of which not more than 
     $33,751,000, to remain available until expended, shall be 
     derived from collections credited to such appropriation 
     during fiscal year 2011 under section 708(d) of title 17, 
     United States Code, and the amount applicable under the third 
     proviso under such heading shall be $34,612,000.
       Sec. 1916.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, 
     Salaries and Expenses'' shall be $107,309,000.
       Sec. 1917.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Library of Congress, Books for the Blind and Physically 
     Handicapped, Salaries and Expenses'' shall be $66,124,000.
       Sec. 1918.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Government Printing Office, Government Printing Office 
     Revolving Fund'' shall be $1,659,000.
       Sec. 1919.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Government Printing Office, Office of Superintendent of 
     Documents, Salaries and Expenses'' shall be $39,911,000.
       Sec. 1920. (a) Section 309(c) of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (44 U.S.C. 305 note) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (5).
       (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect 
     as if included in the enactment of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1999.
       Sec. 1921.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Government Accountability Office, Salaries and Expenses'' 
     shall be $522,823,000, the amount applicable under the first 
     proviso under that heading shall be $9,400,000, the amount 
     applicable under the second proviso under that heading shall 
     be $3,100,000, and the amount applicable under the third 
     proviso under that heading shall be $7,000,000.
       Sec. 1922.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Open World Leadership Center Trust Fund'' shall be 
     $5,100,000.
       Sec. 1923.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``John C. Stennis Center for Public Service Training and 
     Development'' shall be $0.

                              {time}  0120

  Mr. CRENSHAW (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the bill through page 312, line 9, be considered as read, 
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

 TITLE X--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES

       Sec. 2001.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     each of the following accounts of the Department of Defense, 
     excluding funds designated by section 1110 of this division, 
     shall be as follows: ``Military Construction, Army'', 
     $3,904,998,000; ``Military Construction, Navy and Marine 
     Corps'', $3,516,173,000; ``Military Construction, Air 
     Force'', $1,214,295,000; and ``Military Construction, 
     Defense-Wide'', $2,964,062,000.
       Sec. 2002.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     each of the following accounts of the Department of Defense 
     shall be as follows: ``Military Construction, Army National 
     Guard'', $873,664,000; ``Military Construction, Air National 
     Guard'', $194,986,000; ``Military Construction, Army 
     Reserve'', $318,175,000; ``Military Construction, Navy 
     Reserve'', $61,557,000; and ``Military Construction, Air 
     Force Reserve'', $7,832,000.
       Sec. 2003.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     each of the following accounts of the Department of Defense 
     shall be as follows: ``Family Housing Construction, Army'', 
     $92,369,000; ``Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine 
     Corps'', $186,444,000; ``Family Housing Construction, Air 
     Force'', $78,025,000; ``Family Housing Construction, Defense-
     Wide'', $0; and ``Family Housing Improvement Fund'', 
     $1,096,000.
       Sec. 2004.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     each of the following accounts of the Department of Defense 
     shall be as follows: ``North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
     Security Investment Program'', $258,884,000; ``Homeowners 
     Assistance Fund'', $16,515,000; ``Chemical Demilitarization 
     Construction, Defense-Wide'', $124,971,000; ``Department of 
     Defense Base Closure Account 1990'', $360,474,000; and 
     ``Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005'', 
     $2,354,285,000.
       Sec. 2005.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     each of the following accounts of the Department of Defense 
     shall be as follows: ``Family Housing Operation and 
     Maintenance, Army'', $518,140,000; ``Family Housing Operation 
     and Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps'', $366,346,000; 
     ``Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', 
     $513,792,000; and ``Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'', $50,464,000.
       Sec. 2006.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     division, the following provisions included in title I of 
     division E of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds 
     made available by this division: the first, second, and last 
     provisos, and the set-aside of $350,000,000, under the 
     heading ``Military Construction, Army''; the first and last 
     provisos under the heading ``Military Construction, Navy and 
     Marine Corps''; the first, second, and last provisos under 
     the heading ``Military Construction, Air Force''; the second, 
     third, fourth, and last provisos under the heading ``Military 
     Construction, Defense-Wide'', the first, second and last 
     provisos, and the set-aside of $30,000,000, under the heading 
     ``Military Construction, Army National Guard''; the first, 
     second, and last provisos, and the set-aside of $30,000,000, 
     under the heading ``Military Construction, Air National 
     Guard''; the first, second, and last provisos, and the set-
     aside of $30,000,000, under the heading ``Military 
     Construction, Army Reserve''; the first, second, and last 
     provisos, the set-aside of $20,000,000, and the set-aside of 
     $35,000,000, under the heading ``Military Construction, Navy 
     Reserve''; the first, second, and last provisos, and the set-
     aside of $55,000,000, under the heading ``Military 
     Construction, Air Force Reserve''; the proviso under the 
     heading ``Family Construction, Army''; the proviso under the 
     heading ``Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine 
     Corps''; the proviso under the heading ``Family Housing 
     Construction , Air Force''; the proviso under the heading 
     ``Family Housing Construction, Defense-Wide''; and the 
     proviso under the heading ``Chemical Demilitarization 
     Construction, Defense-Wide''.
       Sec. 2007.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Departmental 
     Administration, General Operating Expenses'' shall be 
     $2,546,276,000, of which not less than $2,148,776,000 shall 
     be for the Veterans Benefits Administration.
       Sec. 2008.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Departmental 
     Administration, Information Technology Systems'' shall be 
     $3,146,898,000.
       Sec. 2009.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Departmental 
     Administration, Construction, Major Projects'' shall be 
     $1,151,036,000: Provided, That not later than 30 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     a spending plan for fiscal year 2011 at a level of detail 
     below the account level: Provided further, That the last 
     proviso included in title I of division E of Public Law 111-
     117 under the heading ``Department of Veterans Affairs, 
     Departmental Administration, Construction, Major Projects'' 
     shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division.

[[Page 2193]]

       Sec. 2010.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Departmental 
     Administration, Construction, Minor Projects'' shall be 
     $467,700,000.
       Sec. 2011.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Departmental 
     Administration, Grants for Construction of State Extended 
     Care Facilities'' shall be $85,000,000.
       Sec. 2012.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Armed Forces Retirement Home, Trust Fund'' shall be 
     $71,200,000, of which $2,000,000 shall be for construction 
     and renovation of physical plants.
       Sec. 2013.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     division, the following provisions included in title IV of 
     division E of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated by this division: the proviso under ``Military 
     Construction, Army'' and the proviso under ``Military 
     Construction, Air Force''.
       Sec. 2014.  Of the funds made available for ``Military 
     Construction, Defense-Wide'' in title I of division E of 
     Public Law 110-329, $23,000,000 is rescinded.
       Sec. 2015.  Of the funds made available for ``Military 
     Construction, Defense-Wide'' in title I of division E of 
     Public Law 111-117, $125,500,000 is rescinded.
       Sec. 2016.  Of the funds made available for ``Military 
     Construction, Army'' in title I of division E of Public Law 
     111-117, $160,000,000 is rescinded.
       Sec. 2017.  Of the funds made available for ``Military 
     Construction, Navy and Marine Corps'' in title I of division 
     E of Public Law 111-117, $34,000,000 is rescinded.
       Sec. 2018.  Of the funds made available for ``Military 
     Construction, Air Force'' in title I of division E of Public 
     Law 111-117, $87,000,000 is rescinded.
       Sec. 2019.  Of the unobligated balances available for 
     ``Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005'' from 
     prior appropriations (other than appropriations designated by 
     law as being for contingency operations directly related to 
     the global war on terrorism or as an emergency requirement), 
     $200,000,000 is rescinded.
       Sec. 2020.  Of the funds designated by section 1110 of this 
     division, funds available for the Department of Defense shall 
     be as follows: ``Military Construction, Army'', $929,994,000; 
     ``Military Construction, Air Force'', $280,506,000; and 
     ``Military Construction, Defense-Wide'', $46,500,000.
       Sec. 2021.  The levels for each of the following accounts 
     for fiscal year 2012 shall be as follows:
       (1) ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Services'', 
     $39,649,985,000, which shall become available on October 1, 
     2011, and shall remain available until September 30, 2012.
       (2) ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Support and 
     Compliance'', $5,535,000,000, which shall become available on 
     October 1, 2011, and shall remain available until September 
     30, 2012.
       (3) ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Facilities'' 
     in the amount of $5,426,000,000, which shall become available 
     on October 1, 2011, and shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2012.
       Sec. 2022.  Of the amounts appropriated to the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2011 for ``Medical 
     services'', ``Medical support and compliance'', ``Medical 
     facilities'', ``Construction, minor projects'', and 
     ``Information technology systems'', up to $235,360,000, plus 
     reimbursements, may be transferred to the Joint Department of 
     Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility 
     Demonstration Fund, established by section 1704 of title XVII 
     of division A of Public Law 111-84 and may be used for 
     operation of the facilities designated as a combined Federal 
     medical facility as described by section 706 of Public Law 
     110-417: Provided, That additional funds may be transferred 
     from accounts designated in this section to the Joint 
     Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 
     Facility Demonstration Fund upon written notification by the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
       Sec. 2023.  Such sums as may be deposited to the Medical 
     Care Collections Fund pursuant to section 1729A of title 38, 
     United States Code, for health care provided at facilities 
     designated as a combined Federal medical facility as 
     described by section 706 of Public Law 110-417 shall also be 
     available: (1) for transfer to the Joint Department of 
     Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility 
     Demonstration Fund, established by section 1704 of Public Law 
     111-84, and (2) for operations of the facilities designated 
     as a combined Federal medical facility as described by 
     section 706 of Public Law 110-417.
       Sec. 2024.  Of the funds made available for ``Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, Departmental Administration, Information 
     technology systems'' in division E of Public Law 111-117, 
     $117,000,000 is rescinded.

  Mr. CRENSHAW (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the bill through page 319, line 25, be considered as read, 
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       TITLE XI--STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS

       Sec. 2101.  For purposes of this title, the term ``division 
     F of Public Law 111-117'' means the Department of State, 
     Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 
     2010 (division F of Public Law 111-117).

  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Chairman, it seems to me that in this frenzied 
competition to see who can cut the most and the fastest, we are losing 
all sense of reason and rationality. I am deeply concerned by what I 
see happening to the international affairs budget which is contained in 
this title XI of the bill before us.
  In the past, the State Department and foreign appropriations bill has 
passed with strong bipartisan support, often by an overwhelming margin. 
Members of both parties have understood how important diplomacy and 
development are, not only to U.S. standing in the world, but to our 
country's own economic growth, to American jobs and to American 
national security.
  They recognize that problems such as terrorism, the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction and the spread of deadly disease cannot be 
resolved unilaterally. They know that over the long term, the best way 
to create more jobs at home is to build more export markets overseas. 
They understand that we cannot defeat violent extremism by military 
means alone and that, as Secretary Gates said last fall, ``Development 
is a lot cheaper than sending soldiers.
  Yet the process by which this CR has been produced makes a mockery of 
the responsibilities we have as Members of Congress to advance our 
economy and protect our national security.
  First, the Republican leadership announced a plan to make $44 billion 
in cuts. Then we started hearing other numbers: $58 billion, $74 
billion, $100 billion. Each time it is measured a different way by a 
different baseline. And no matter how high the number goes, there are 
proposals to cut even deeper.
  These numbers weren't chosen because they looked at programs and 
said, Here is something that is not working, or, Here is something we 
don't need to do. No, the number was purely arbitrary, plucked out of a 
hat, totally unrelated to any thoughtful calculation of what was 
actually needed and how much that cost.
  This bill isn't about making government more cost effective or more 
efficient. It doesn't promote the kinds of reforms and streamlining 
that are needed to ensure that our aid reaches those who need it most. 
It is simply a slash-and-burn process, hacking away with a machete 
without consideration for all the critically important work that is 
being destroyed or how it affects our national security.
  The base bill itself might be laughable if it weren't so appalling. 
Humanitarian programs to provide lifesaving assistance, food, water, 
medicine and plastic sheeting to victims of earthquakes, hurricanes, 
floods and famines is cut by 50 percent. Do we really intend to stand 
idly by as innocent men, women, and children starve to death? Will we 
turn off our television sets when we see people's homes and livelihoods 
wiped away by an unexpected catastrophe?
  It is not just disaster aid that is affected. Every other program 
that protects the poorest and most vulnerable people is savaged: 
refugee aid, food aid, water and sanitation, massive cuts in 
international efforts to fight AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.
  Meanwhile, funding for the diplomats and aid workers who carry out 
these programs is also slashed. If there is anything we have learned 
over the past few years, it ought to be that we just don't hand over 
money to contractors and governments without adequate oversight and 
accountability.

[[Page 2194]]

  Over the last month, we have all watched the incredible events 
unfolding in Tunisia and Egypt. The United States did not create these 
democracy movements and does not control them. But our diplomats did 
and do play a large role in helping to promote peaceful, negotiated 
solutions so that the will of the people can be heard.
  Our security assistance helped professionalize forces in both of 
those countries so they did not crush the demonstrators with force, as 
has happened in so many other places. And yet this bill and many of the 
proposed amendments would slash the kinds of assistance we provide 
nascent democracy movements and human rights activists under other 
authoritarian regimes.
  Somehow, the draconian cuts in this bill were not enough for many in 
this body. Added on top of all these cuts, we now face amendments to 
remove ourselves completely from the United Nations, to eliminate 
funding for the National Endowment for Democracy and the Millennium 
Challenge Corporation and the U.S. Institute of Peace. They would 
prohibit us from taking action to address climate change and increase 
the availability of voluntary family planning for couples who cannot 
feed the children they already have. They would cut aid to countries 
whose support is essential to us in the areas of counterterrorism, 
intelligence and nonproliferation just because they don't vote with us 
in the United Nations.
  There is one thing the authors of these amendments don't seem to 
understand: Aid is not a gift. The United States provides foreign 
assistance because it serves our interests. Helping countries become 
more democratic, more stable, more capable of defending themselves and 
better at pulling themselves also out of poverty is just as important 
for us as it is for them.
  Madam Chairman, the cuts to international spending in this bill will 
not create a single U.S. job. In fact, they will cost jobs.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chairwoman, as chair of the State and Foreign 
Operations Appropriations Subcommittee for the last 4 years, I worked 
in a bipartisan manner with my friend, Chairwoman Kay Granger, to 
ensure our bill protects our national security, and I do appreciate her 
efforts to sustain our successes and note the inclusion of $3 billion 
pursuant to the MOU between the United States and Israel and continued 
commitments to Egypt and Jordan in the bill we consider today. I am 
also pleased the bill continues robust investment in basic education, 
which is the cornerstone of free, healthy and economically stable 
societies.
  Tough measures we authored to hold accountable recipients of U.S. 
assistance in Afghanistan are also preserved in this bill to ensure 
that taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently and effectively to achieve 
our security priorities in the region. However, irresponsible cuts in 
policies in the CR will threaten global stability and American 
interests abroad.
  There is broad bipartisan agreement that a three-legged stool of 
defense, diplomacy and development is vital to our national security, 
yet this bill would dramatically weaken U.S. diplomacy and development.

                              {time}  0130

  Despite the ongoing events in Egypt, burgeoning protests throughout 
the region, instability around the world, this bill undermines our 
efforts aimed at democratic governance and alternative development 
options, our support of international financial institutions, conflict 
mitigation and reconciliation, disaster assistance, and global health 
priorities.
  In addition, the Republican leadership has taken a divisive approach 
by including reinstatement of the global gag rule and a prohibition on 
funds for the United Nations Population Fund in our first spending bill 
in the new majority.
  During my 4 years as chair of the subcommittee, I refrained from 
including many women's health priorities I fought for throughout my 
career so that we could work together to advance America's best 
interests. This CR would deny millions of women abroad family planning 
and basic health services, and I'm deeply disappointed that my 
colleagues refuse to work with us to bolster our efforts to prevent 
unintended pregnancies and the spread of disease in the developing 
world.
  Finally, these measures are brought to the floor under the guise of 
fiscal responsibility. Let me be clear: This bill would endanger our 
national and economic security, hurt job growth, and put an extreme 
social agenda ahead of restoring our economy. So I urge my colleagues 
to oppose this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Chair, over the last several weeks we've seen some 
of the most dramatic and potentially promising events in the Arab world 
in perhaps a generation. We saw what began with the actions of a fruit 
vendor in Tunisia spiral and take down not only the government in that 
country but in Egypt in a way that carries on and whose consequences we 
have yet to fully comprehend.
  In this environment where we have a potential game-changing situation 
in the Arab world, where people not only in the Arab world but around 
the entire globe have celebrated as people have taken to the streets to 
reclaim the right to shape their own government, to exercise their God-
given rights of freedom of expression, freedom of association, in this 
hour of great promise and hour of great peril, our ability to interact 
with the rest of the world, our ability to fund vital efforts in the 
rest of the world is more essential than ever.
  We have an opportunity here to help in parts of the world that have 
been fertile terrain for terrorism to remove some of the root causes of 
that terrorism--the lack of opportunity, suffering under authoritarian 
regimes--and we need to engage in this potentially new world.
  I am very much afraid that some of the crippling cuts to our foreign 
assistance budget that are contemplated in this CR will undermine our 
ability to react and respond in this fast-changing situation. Some of 
the further cuts that are contemplated in the amendments that we'll 
hear tonight which will even go beyond what is in this CR would, again, 
be extraordinarily detrimental to our ability to help shape in a 
positive way the events that are taking place.
  To give you one example, right now Egypt is under military law. We 
have a decades-long relationship with the Egyptian military by virtue 
of our FMF funding, by virtue of our IMET relationship. These are the 
subject of not only cuts but, in some of the amendments tonight, 
crippling cuts that will undermine our continuing ability, our 
continuing relationship with that military as it works with members of 
the opposition to shape Egypt's future. That relationship we have with 
the Egyptian military I think will be pivotal in keeping a fire lit in 
Egypt to make sure that the road to democracy is inexorable and that it 
happens soon. So I am desperately concerned about some of the cuts in 
the CR and some of the cuts that are contemplated in the amendments.
  I appreciate very much the work that my chair, Nita Lowey, has done 
and the new chair, Ms. Granger, has done. I look forward to working 
with both of them. I hope to restore some of the funding that has been 
taken out in the CR and to defeat some of the amendments that will 
further undercut these vital international efforts.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. GRANGER. Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1.
  Chairman Rogers, it's been a pleasure working with you and the other 
members of the committee on this important piece of legislation that 
begins to address our country's fiscal crisis. For too long we have 
seen

[[Page 2195]]

unsustainable increases in spending. This bill puts an end to that 
practice and further corrects course by making unprecedented cuts to 
the federal budget.
  As chair of the State-Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I know the 
difficult tradeoffs that have to be made to achieve these levels of 
cuts, but we cannot continue to ignore our skyrocketing deficits and 
debt.
  We are taking our pledge to cut spending seriously. Since fiscal year 
2008, the state-foreign operations budget has had dramatic increases, 
and this bill begins to rein in the growth of many programs.
  The state-foreign operations title of the bill before us is $44.9 
billion. This represents--an $11.7 billion, or 21%, reduction from the 
president's fiscal year 2011 request; A $3.8 billion, or 8%, reduction 
from the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, and A $9.9 billion, or 18%, 
reduction from the fiscal year 2010 level with supplemental 
appropriations.
  Let me be clear--while these are dramatic cuts, I support the goals 
and objectives of using civilian power to achieve our national security 
goals. But the state of our economy does not afford us the luxury of 
continuing all the programs we're currently supporting around the 
world, particularly at a time when domestic programs are being 
significantly reduced.
  To achieve the level of savings included for the remainder of FY11, 
reductions were made in areas that, while difficult, preserve important 
efforts and priorities. For example, the bill before us supports top 
national security priorities, maintains momentum in Iraq, Afghanistan, 
and Pakistan, fully funds the US-Israel memorandum of understanding at 
$3 billion, and continues the fight against illegal drug trafficking in 
Mexico, Central America, and Colombia.
  In order to do all of these things, in this bill:
  New activities are paused so we can take a closer look at our current 
investments to ensure they are working before we expand them.
  Many programs that are well-liked and supported are scaled back. Our 
country simply cannot afford the growth some of these programs have 
experienced since 2008.
  Underperforming, wasteful, and duplicative programs are significantly 
reduced, and many are eliminated. We cannot continue to spend simply 
because we have done so in the past.
  Large administration commitments--like climate change--are shelved. 
We must be sure our domestic problems are addressed before we consider 
these large investments abroad.
  While these choices were difficult, they must be made in order to 
preserve our national security priorities.
  There is a need for continued oversight in our foreign aid and 
constituents want to be assured that their tax dollars are being used 
as intended and not falling into the wrong hands. For that reason I 
have included language which provides additional oversight for 
countries like Afghanistan and Lebanon.
  I would like to thank ranking member Lowey for her dedication to the 
subcommittee as chair for the last four years, and I look forward to 
continuing to work together.
  We both agree that members on both sides of the aisle deserve to be 
heard on the important foreign policy matters that come before our 
subcommittee. We have members who are returning this year to the 
subcommittee and new members who are ready to be a part of our team.
  I would also like to thank the staff on both sides. On the majority 
staff Anne Marie Chotvacs, Craig Higgins, Alice Hogans, Susan Adams, 
Celia Alvarado, and Jamie Guinn. On the minority staff: Steve Marchese.
  I know Mrs. Lowey and I both appreciate the work of our personal 
office staff: Aaron Ranck, Johnnie Kaberle, and Talia Dubovi.
  I also want to recognize Jeff Shockey. This will be the last 
appropriations bill on the floor before Jeff leaves the appropriations 
committee so I want take this opportunity to thank him for his years of 
dedication and hard work. Jeff has been a significant asset to this 
committee, and to the house, and he will be missed.
  We all benefit from these highly professional staff and I thank them 
for their work to help bring the fiscal year 2011 process to a close.
  I hope this bill will move forward quickly to ensure important 
government operations are continued in a manner that is fiscally 
responsible and meets our foreign policy challenges around the world.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 2102.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     each of the following accounts shall be as follows: 
     ``Administration of Foreign Affairs, Diplomatic and Consular 
     Programs'', $8,383,460,000, of which $1,491,041,000 is for 
     Worldwide Security Protection (to be available until 
     expended); ``Administration of Foreign Affairs, Office of 
     Inspector General'', $94,000,000; ``Administration of Foreign 
     Affairs, Capital Investment Fund'', $59,575,000; 
     ``Administration of Foreign Affairs, Emergencies in the 
     Diplomatic and Consular Service'', $9,400,000; 
     ``Administration of Foreign Affairs, Representation 
     Allowances'', $7,685,000; ``Administration of Foreign 
     Affairs, Payment to the American Institute in Taiwan'', 
     $19,904,000; ``Administration of Foreign Affairs, Civilian 
     Stabilization Initiative'', $40,000,000; and ``Administration 
     of Foreign Affairs, Protection of Foreign Missions and 
     Officials'', $26,320,000.
       Sec. 2103.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     each of the following accounts shall be as follows: 
     ``International Organizations, Contributions to International 
     Organizations'', $1,516,430,000; ``International 
     Organizations, Contributions for International Peacekeeping 
     Activities'', $1,898,511,000; ``Related Programs, United 
     States Institute of Peace'', $42,676,000, which shall not be 
     used for construction activities; ``Related Programs, East-
     West Center'', $10,716,000; and ``International Commissions, 
     International Fisheries Commissions'', $44,627,000.


                Amendment No. 100 Offered by Mr. Weiner

  Mr. WEINER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 321, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $42,676,000)''.
       Page 359, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $42,676,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WEINER. Madam Chair, this amendment is a simple one. It strikes 
funding for the United States Institute of Peace. I'm going to direct 
most of my remarks today to my colleagues on the Democratic side, 
because I think this does insist upon bipartisan support.
  I think the United States Institute of Peace is a great organization. 
I think they do great work. If you're going to rise today to say 
continue funding them because of all the great things they do, you 
don't need to bother. I agree with you.
  The simple question is: After spending $720 million in taxpayer funds 
adjusted for inflation since 1985 not through a grant program but 
through a congressional earmark that has been dropped in year after 
year, the taxpayers have built this glorious new building.
  By the way, this one right here is the State Department. That does 
many of the same things.
  I can tell you that the Council on Foreign Relations hasn't gotten 
$721 million, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Brookings 
Institute, Cato, Roosevelt Institute, Council on Hemisphere Affairs, or 
none of the nearly 151 peace study organizations at universities around 
the country.
  I say to my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, if for a 
moment we can focus on this, it is incumbent on all of us to also be 
seeing opportunities where we can find things in the budget that 
perhaps we can do without. Just like in the eighties when there were so 
many of the programs we felt important to us came under attack during 
the Reagan years, it sharpened our focus and it made us come up with 
better and better programs that dealt with some of the critique of our 
opponents. We need to do that now as well. The idea of weeding out 
government waste is a Democratic progressive ideal. We want to do that.
  This is a very, very good program. But should we be spending $100 
million of taxpayer money to build a think tank, a giant headquarters a 
stone's throw from the State Department? Should we be providing them 
money through grants from the Department of Defense or State 
Department? Maybe. They get those, too. But they get a direct 
congressional earmark that was dropped in in 1985 and hasn't had a 
single oversight hearing since.
  It's a good program. It does worthy things. I got a copy of the 
talking points of the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Lowey), one of my 
absolute heroes in this place, and it lists some of those great things 
they do. But the question has to be: In these fiscal times, is there 
nothing that we should be able to say, you know, maybe we should do 
without? Or, better yet, if you believe that giving an additional $40 
million, let it go out in the form of

[[Page 2196]]

grants. Let other institutes step up and try to get it. Let them apply. 
Let them make an application.
  This is a moment that we progressives have to embrace. There's a lot 
of waste. They didn't get a lot of it, the other side of the aisle. And 
I think that we should be looking for opportunities to say maybe we can 
do things a little bit differently.
  Let's remember how this got here, by the way. This got here when 
former Senator Stevens put a $100 million earmark in the bill in 
conference. It wasn't voted on here, wasn't voted on the Senate, and it 
plopped in. We deride those things all the time, and yet here it is, 
this glorious building. This building is remarkable. And I'll give you 
more. Apparently, Navy Hill, which is right nearby, the Defense 
Department is giving them some land there, too.

                              {time}  0140

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WEINER. If we are going to engage in a debate and if you will 
yield on your time, I gladly will.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I would be happy to.
  Mr. WEINER. Yes, I will gladly yield.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. General Petraeus has written a letter 
indicating that the Institute of Peace is an integral part of resolving 
conflict and mediation on the ground.
  I hope the gentleman will comment on that.
  Mr. WEINER. Yes, certainly. He's right.
  The question is not that but, rather, where in General Petraeus' 
letter did he say we should be funding it with a direct congressional 
earmark. No one says stop functioning. I want this building to be 
filled up with happy, peace-loving activists who are doing their job. I 
hope they do.
  The question is very simple, I say to my colleague from Illinois, one 
of the foremost leaders of this House:
  Why do we choose this particular think tank to bestow this direct 
congressional line item? I'm amenable to taking the $42 million and 
saying, let's see if they can use it at Cornell or the University of 
Illinois' Peace Institute or at the Cato Institute or--I was going to 
say a more conservative one just to mix it up a little bit.
  The point that I'm making is, it's just why it has this status in the 
budget. It shouldn't. It had it once. It keeps it. It keeps it. It 
keeps it. It keeps it. Look at this. Have you been to the State 
Department recently? It doesn't look this good. Have you been to the 
Pentagon recently? It doesn't look this good. I mean, this is pretty 
darned good, and it's $100 million of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Go out and 
raise it like every other think tank.
  General Petraeus is right. Let's keep the United States Institute of 
Peace, but let's stop paying for it in this way.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. GRANGER. Madam Chair, Congress created the U.S. Institute of 
Peace in 1984 as part of the Defense Authorization Act of 1985. Since 
that time, USIP has been active on the ground in diverse conflict zones 
around the world, among them the Balkans, Afghanistan, Colombia, Iraq, 
Kashmir, Liberia, Nepal, Pakistan, the Palestinian Territories, 
Nigeria, Sudan, Uganda, and the Philippines.
  With conflicts continuing around the globe, the institute's expertise 
and independence is an important resource for both the Secretary of 
State and the Secretary of Defense to utilize in protecting our 
national security and in promoting our values of liberty and democracy.
  General David Petraeus stated it well in a 2009 letter to OMB: ``I 
write to underscore the importance of the U.S. Institute of Peace to 
the missions the United States is currently pursuing in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. While I have long been an avid reader of USIP's analytical 
products, which are second to none in tracking the challenges we face 
in both countries and in outlining policy options, I have more recently 
been impressed with USIP's on-the-ground peace-building efforts. USIP's 
experience working closely with the U.S. military will be a great asset 
in developing stronger unity of effort between civilian and military 
elements of government.''
  Former Secretary of State George Schultz, in a February 15, 2011, 
letter to the institute's President, echoed the comments of General 
Petraeus by saying:
  ``We are in the most profound period of change in international 
affairs since the end of the Cold War; and the institute, as a small 
and agile operation, has demonstrated a unique capacity to innovate in 
approaches to managing conflicts abroad that affect U.S. interests.''
  Madam Chair, I have great respect for both General Petraeus and 
former Secretary of State George Schultz. The CR already reduces USIP's 
appropriation by over 6 percent. I cannot support further cuts, and I 
urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chair, the U.S. Government simply must 
have options for solving international conflict other than military 
action or international diplomacy. USIP is the only independent U.S. 
Government actor that is dedicated solely to conflict mediation and 
resolution.
  For example, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, USIP has been on the 
ground since the beginning of these conflicts, actively bringing 
together parties to the conflict and building an agenda for the 
resolution of these conflicts, resulting in less need for American 
troops and paving the way for stabilization efforts. General Petraeus 
called USIP's reconciliation work in Iraq ``a striking success.''
  Here are several examples of what the Department of Defense, the 
Regional Combatant Commands and other components of the military have 
asked USIP to do, just in the past year, to help them deal with 
challenges:
  A joint program with the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center in Fort 
Leavenworth to convene multiple U.S. agencies and extract key lessons 
from the U.S. military to civilian transition in Iraq to help those 
confronting another massive handoff in Afghanistan.
  Comprehensive training for the U.S. Department of Defense's Ministry 
of Advisors Program, MoDA, going out to serve in Afghanistan for 
Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell, IV, commander of NATO Training 
Command Afghanistan.
  USIP, Madam Chair, is a small, agile center of innovation in support 
of America's national security. Funding for it, obviously, should not 
be eliminated today.
  I want to draw from a letter that General Petraeus, the General of 
the United States Army Commanding Forces in Afghanistan, most recently 
wrote to Rob Goldberg, the Director of International Affairs at NSP.
  He says--and I extrapolate--``USIP's experience working closely with 
the U.S. military will be a great asset in developing stronger unity of 
effort between civilian and military elements of government. In fact, I 
hope soon to see U.S. military officers training alongside civilian 
governmental and nongovernmental counterparts in USIP's headquarters at 
23rd and Constitution,'' the wonderful building that my colleague Mr. 
Weiner, one of the foremost leaders of this institution, pointed out to 
us just moments ago.
  ``Their facility is not just an important symbol of our Nation's 
commitment to peace; it is also home to a wonderful training center 
that we hope to leverage to increase understanding and unity of effort 
in today's complex operations.''
  The USIP is across the street, or just across the river, from the 
Pentagon, therefore giving access to our military leaders who are 
fighting abroad.
  Mr. WEINER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. The gentleman correctly points out some of the great 
things they're doing on behalf of the Department of Defense.

[[Page 2197]]

  Is the gentleman aware that the United States Institute of Peace 
gets, in addition to the money that I've identified here, $135 million 
in transfer from DOD, USAID and the State Department? Is the gentleman 
aware that they already get grants to do that work and that the money 
that I am seeking to cut is above and beyond that work? Is the 
gentleman aware of that?
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I am aware of that.
  That notwithstanding, the fact of the matter is this money is not 
wasted money. This money is designed to provide our military officers 
and civilian sectors of various combatant war zones in both Afghanistan 
and Iraq with an opportunity to interact.
  This is not the responsibility of the Pentagon. This is not what the 
Pentagon does. So, with our military personnel on the ground, either as 
combatants or as noncombatants, having access to civilian sectors in 
society and helping them transition to peaceful forms of government and 
having conflict resolution at the local level are critical parts of our 
long-going mission in Afghanistan.
  I would be happy to continue to yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. Does the gentleman not believe that the Council on 
Foreign Relations is good or the Foreign Policy Research Institute or 
the Brookings Institute or all of the other institutes that do similar 
work but that don't live in this gilded building and that don't do so 
with government?
  I mean, the question is not whether they're good. It's whether they 
should have this wonted status that puts them primary among all think 
tanks that are doing very good work.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. In reclaiming the balance of my time, let me 
say that, while I recognize the importance of the other think tanks and 
the work that they do in achieving and working towards peace, the 
United States Government also has an obligation to work directly with 
civilian sectors in various combatant zones.
  What is the United States Government's commitment to peace? Well, 
that commitment to peace manifests itself through the United States 
Institute for Peace, USIP, not through other foundations or through 
other means by which peace may be maintained.
  I thank the gentleman for engaging in the debate.

                                    United States Central Command,


                                      Office of the Commander,

                        MacDill Air Force Base, FL, Feb. 11, 2009.
     Mr. Rob Goldberg,
     Director, International Affairs Division, National Security 
         Programs, The Office of Management and Budget, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Goldberg, I would like to underscore the 
     importance of the US Institute for Peace (USIP) to the 
     missions the United States is currently pursuing in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan. While I have long been an avid reader of USIP's 
     analytical products, which are second to none in tracking the 
     challenges we face in both countries and in outlining policy 
     options, I have more recently been impressed with USIP's on-
     the-ground peacebuilding efforts.
       In Iraq, the Institute stepped up to the plate beginning in 
     August 2007 to assist the 10th Mountain Division in a 
     reconciliation effort in Mahmoudiya, a community on the 
     southern edge of Baghdad that was once known as the 
     ``Triangle of Death.'' Since then, General Odierno and I have 
     often cited Mahmoudiya as a striking success story. USIP's 
     continuing reconciliation efforts at the community level, 
     especially in Diyala and Ninewa, as well as at the national 
     level in Baghdad, hold great promise for the future.
       In Afghanistan, USIP's work on the informal justice system 
     has been invaluable as we work toward improving the rule of 
     law at the provincial level. Their plans for reconciliation 
     efforts at the community level on the Afghanistan/Pakistan 
     border are likewise a potential key to success in the 
     enormous challenges we face.
       USIP's experience working closely with the US military will 
     be a great asset in developing stronger unity of effort 
     between civilian and military elements of government. In 
     fact, I hope soon to see US military officers training 
     alongside civilian governmental and nongovernmental 
     counterparts in USIP's headquarters at 23rd and Constitution. 
     Their facility is not just an important symbol of our 
     nation's commitment to peace; it is also home to a wonderful 
     training center that we hope to leverage to increase 
     understanding and unity of effort in today's complex 
     operations.
       We can be proud of what USIP has done in the past, and I 
     look forward with confidence to the contributions the 
     Institute will make in the future.
           Sincerely,
                                                David H. Petraeus,
                          General, United States Army, Commanding.

  Mr. CRAVAACK. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CRAVAACK. I rise today in support of the amendment, and I thank 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) for working across party lines 
to include us in this continuing resolution.
  Madam Chair, after years of massive deficit spending and with a 
ballooning national debt, we must look for ways to rein in Washington's 
out-of-control spending and begin the process of getting our fiscal 
house back in order.

                              {time}  0150

  That begins by cutting unnecessary and repetitive programs like the 
U.S. Institute of Peace. Make no mistake, I believe that the 
institute's goals are also important and they are honorable. Who among 
us does not wish for peace, both for ourselves and for future 
generations of Americans?
  But given our current fiscal constraints, I cannot justify spending 
over $42 million to pay for an organization whose role could be 
fulfilled by existing Departments, agencies, or nonprofit 
organizations, many of which do not depend on the Federal Government 
for funding.
  This program has essentially been on autopilot with no real 
congressional oversight since it was created over 25 years ago. Over 
that time, the taxpayers have spent over $700 million to fund this 
redundant organization. Enough is enough.
  The people of northeast Minnesota sent me, like many of my freshman 
colleagues, to Washington because they are tired of unaccountable 
government wasting their hard-earned dollars and borrowing against 
their children's futures.
  I am proud to note that this amendment is supported by Citizens 
Against Government Waste, a nonpartisan group whose mission is to 
eliminate waste, mismanagement, and inefficiency in the Federal 
Government. They know an unnecessary program when they see it.
  For example, in the building for the Institute of Peace--and this is 
from their Web site--there will be a contemplation area that will 
provide a quiet, meditative setting where visitors can reflect on their 
journey through the Global Peacebuilding Center. Enveloped in a spare, 
yet evocative, space combining a soothing water element with a generous 
gathering area, visitors will be encouraged to take time to consider 
the meaning of their recent experience. Preliminary thoughts for the 
water feature suggest a piece of cantilevered, honed slate across which 
flows a thin sheet of water that spills off the table into a pool 
below.
  Included in these areas is an immersion theater and paths to peace 
building. A culminating game will illustrate the winding path to peace, 
filled with challenges and obstacles along the way. Visitors will 
determine the best route to take to reach a peaceful solution to a 
conflict. Signposts along the way will flag obstacles to peace, 
opportunities for moving the peace process forward, and dangers of 
backsliding or losing ground.
  In response to President Reagan signing this into existence, what 
actually occurred is former Representative Dante Fascell had a 
provision inserted at the last minute to title 17 of the Defense 
Authorization Act which then-President Reagan signed. General Petraeus, 
and I also agree, signed it in 2007 commending this organization but 
that was several years ago, and since then, we have had no oversight.
  In closing, this is a real, tangible cut we can make today. 
Eliminating this funding and returning the money to the taxpayers is 
just one way we can show we are serious about getting down to business 
and righting our fiscal ship.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

[[Page 2198]]


  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, one of the great urgencies that we have in 
this country is to get our fiscal house in order. We're paying more 
than $600 million a day in interest on our debt. Our debt has now 
accumulated to something like $14 trillion; and when we have an 
opportunity, really an obligation to point out redundancies within our 
government, we have to take that obligation and act upon it.
  The United States Institute of Peace is clearly one of those 
opportunities where we cite redundancy and we say we don't need 
somebody competing, in essence, with the State Department. Yes, they do 
great work in many different areas. They have been able to raise 
literally millions and millions of dollars from grants but, also, more 
importantly, from the outside world; and this is an opportunity for us 
to actually scale this back and allow that transition to happen.
  Now, some will say, well, it is just another $40 million; that's not 
going to make a big enough dent in the debt. The reality is, we have to 
start small. We have to see small things add up over the course of 
time. These appropriations that have happened year after year after 
year really on autopilot have now cost the taxpayers in excess of $700 
million. We're about to approach $1 billion, right in the shadows of 
the State Department.
  Their primary mission is to do what the United States Institute of 
Peace is also trying to do; and if they are able to add to the 
equation, then they surely, with the letters that they get from General 
Petraeus and the former Secretary of State, can go out and use that in 
a fund-raising mechanism to continue in that effort. But for us to go 
back into the taxpayers' wallet and pull money out and give it in favor 
of this particular institution, in contrast to what CATO and Heritage 
and all these other organizations that have been identified previously, 
is not fair, it's not right, and in this case, I would urge my 
colleagues to understand the redundancy that is going on here and say, 
please, this is an opportunity where we can truly make a cut.
  I appreciate the great work that the Representative from New York 
(Mr. Weiner) has done and the gentleman from Minnesota who has spoken 
to this. I concur with that.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  There seems to be some confusion about the role of the State 
Department and the role of the Institute of Peace. We know that the 
State Department is responsible for diplomacy, and the Institute of 
Peace is the only institute that the United States of America has on 
the ground that advances peace in conflict areas, sustainable peace.
  Would the gentleman please comment for us on the difference between 
diplomacy at the State Department and peace? Peace is not the 
responsibility of the State Department.
  Mr. WEINER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. I appreciate you yielding. Peace is not the job of the 
State Department? That is exactly----
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Diplomacy is the responsibility of the State 
Department.
  Mr. WEINER. Diplomacy and not towards making a grilled cheese 
sandwich; diplomacy towards making peace.
  Look, we're parsing here. The fact of the matter is it's a nonprofit 
think tank that does a great job. Pursuing peace is a good thing. I 
don't believe Mr. Chaffetz and I are against pursuing peace.
  The only question is, when we are apportioning Federal dollars in the 
budget, do we say to one institute that tries to foster peace, you're 
going to get money, and another, you're not? Do we say to one, you're 
going to get a building, and the other, you're not? Do we say, one, 
you're going to go through competitive grants; the other is not?
  That's the only question. The idea there's only one--maybe Mr. 
Chaffetz can speak to this. The idea there's only one think tank 
pursuing peaceful outcomes, I believe, Mr. Jackson, you know that 
that's not the case.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Reclaiming my time, I would state that it is the 
overarching goal of the United States of America in every form to 
achieve peace. I think we are a very peaceful Nation. I think to the 
President, the Congress, the State Department, the Department of 
Defense, the overall goal of the United States of America is to achieve 
peace; and if we have anybody who is trying to pursue anything other 
than peace, I would take issue with that.
  Mr. WEINER. If the gentleman would yield, I also think we need to 
change the way we think here. A lot of us are, like, why would you want 
to defund anything with peace in its name?
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Reclaiming my time, I am happy to yield to the 
gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Once the conflict in Afghanistan is over, 
once the conflict in Iraq is over and we have an embassy in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, it is not the responsibility of the embassy in Afghanistan 
or Iraq to be responsible for conflict resolution in various provinces 
as a result of conflict.
  The Institute of Peace has a very different role than that of the 
State Department in a combat zone. There's a very, very different role 
for the Institute of Peace.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Utah has expired.
  Mr. BERMAN. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Chairman, I plan to vote against this amendment.
  I want to just make two points: one, the gentleman from New York's 
argument is very good if, in fact, U.S. Institute of Peace was simply 
another think tank. If it were, then why shouldn't they compete like 
other think tanks do for projects and contracts through the 
discretionary funds of the appropriate agencies and decided on that 
basis?
  But the U.S. Institute of Peace is not just the Brookings Institute 
or the Heritage Foundation. It's really more of a ``do'' tank than a 
think tank. It engages very specifically in projects, implementing 
projects that have direct benefits for our forces and for our diplomats 
based on their charter.

                              {time}  0200

  Secondly, if we're going to zero out the U.S. Institute of Peace 
because it's no longer necessary because it isn't worthy of a direct 
earmark, then repeal the legislation that created it. There wasn't 
legislation that created Heritage or Brookings or American Enterprise 
Institute. These were private organizations. The U.S. Institute of 
Peace was created by legislation, passed by both Houses. This wasn't 
dropped in in some conference committee. This was a piece of 
legislation that authorized and created that institute. And what the 
appropriators do each year is decide what appropriation should come, as 
the gentlelady from Texas said in her opening remarks.
  They've already taken a whack out of the Institute of Peace for this 
particular year because--in some cases, they took a bigger whack out of 
some programs that I wish they hadn't done, but they have cut this. But 
then to come back with legislation to repeal the authorizing 
legislation, and then there will be nothing to earmark for, nothing to 
fund.
  The fact is, yeah, it's a nice building and it's right next door to a 
pretty drab building, the State Department. The State Department may 
not like the building they're in, but they sure like to use the U.S. 
Institute of Peace for a whole variety of activities that they think 
they're able to get value added from, and they choose to direct and 
work with and contract with and partner with the U.S. Institute of 
Peace on a whole variety of projects, as does the Pentagon.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.

[[Page 2199]]


  Mr. WEINER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. I just want to make sure that it's clear what we're 
saying. I don't think anyone who supports this amendment believes they 
should cease to exist. You can go to their Web site. They also have the 
benefit of being a beneficiary of private funds that they raise in 
large amounts. They can raise money to continue their work. And it was 
Mr. Jackson who suggested that somehow no one else can do this work. 
The State Department has an Office of the Coordinator for 
Reconstruction Stabilization. The Defense Department has an Arms 
Control and Disarmament Agency. These functions exist within the 
agencies. No one is saying it should not exist. It should exist, just 
not in this way.
  Mr. BERMAN. I respect that the gentleman is not saying they shouldn't 
exist. But this isn't a matter of whether or not they should exist. 
It's that we, by statute, decided to create them for very specific 
purposes. If you don't think this is worthy of Federal funds, then put 
in legislation to repeal the authorization and the creation of this 
institute. Don't keep a statute on the books that creates an 
institution which we're now going to take away the direct appropriation 
for.
  Mr. WEINER. You've got to understand, in the context of this CR, we 
have a binary choice: fund/don't fund. I agree, I would like there to 
be oversight since 1985 over this and to answer this question. To be 
very clear, you are not entirely correct. The money and the 
authorization to build the building came in the form of an earmark, a 
drop of $100 million by Senator Stevens that came from neither House, 
from neither committee. It just fell in there. And that was to build 
that building. We are catching up $780 million in.
  Mr. BERMAN. If retroactively you could undo the money that was spent 
to build the building, make that argument. You are right now trying to 
zero out the appropriation for the programs of an institute that 
Congress created through legislation passed in both Houses. Put in a 
bill to repeal the legislation, and then we will go through the 
arguments about its merits or not and decide. Don't wipe it out through 
this indirect fashion. If you put in legislation, the authorizing 
committees will consider that legislation. This isn't the right way to 
do it.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANSECO. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CANSECO. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. CRAVAACK. Madam Chair, just to discuss a point about the 
Institute of Peace being not like any other organization, actually, 
they are.
  The Afghan Study Center, where they will go in to conduct 2-day, 1-
day seminars in Kabul province on national unity, peace, and stability.
  The Cooperation for Peace and Unity organization, resolve 
longstanding conflicts on Pashtun Sunnis over disputed grazing 
wetlands, report back to their respective community stakeholders on 
peaceful approaches to resolve their disputes.
  Another organization, Cooperation Center Afghanistan. The CCA will 
map ethnic-based conflicts in central Afghanistan, train local members 
and civil society leaders on conflict resolution, and conduct community 
outreach to promote nonviolent practices in conflict situations.
  These, dear colleagues, are in-country. The same thing that the 
Institute of Peace does.
  Now, the bottom line for this is we are $14.1 trillion in debt. We 
are selling our children's futures away. The only reason I am standing 
here today as a Member of Congress is because I'm a father on a mission 
to restore the fiscal responsibility of this great body. And this is 
one organization that we can do without.
  Mr. WEINER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANSECO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. I just want to also make something else clear. You know, 
one of the ironies of the way the U.S. Institute of Peace operates is 
that they are also in the grant-making business with U.S. taxpayer 
dollars, about $50 million. They actually use this as a defense for 
their practice. They say, Oh, wait a minute, Congressman. We pass along 
some of our money to other institutions. We understand there are other 
people that do our business. That's not their job. That should be the 
job either of an agency that they're contracted with, the Department of 
Defense or State, or Congress.
  Now we're saying that we need them to give money to other 
institutions. They, themselves, rebut what Mr. Jackson and what Mr. 
Berman were saying because they've identified universities and 
nonprofits.
  The gentleman from Minnesota is exactly right, that there are 
institutions that do this. According to--this was just a very cursory 
search. 151 peace study programs are underway now in colleges around 
the United States. Just maybe one of them can do this as well. Maybe 
the competition will help some. Maybe a couple of them can work 
together to maybe figure out ways to do this same work. The presumption 
that we have here on this floor, that there's something magical about 
the U.S. Institute of Peace's ability to do it, is what the gentleman 
from Minnesota is referring to. I even heard that introduced in 
evidence. And if I went to the transcripts since 1985 of oversight 
hearings, I would have very little reading to do because we didn't have 
any. So what we're really relying upon is the benevolence of this 
organization to say, If you give us more than the $780 million we've 
gotten, we'll do good things with it.
  The gentleman is exactly right.
  Mr. CRAVAACK. I thank the gentleman from New York, and I thank the 
gentleman from Texas for the time.
  Mr. CANSECO. I yield back the balance of my time, Madam Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 248 Offered by Mr. Canseco

  Mr. CANSECO. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 321, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,716,000)''.
       Page 359, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,716,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CANSECO. Madam Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McClintock), the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), and I have 
introduced a very simple amendment. Specifically, the amendment would 
eliminate the $10,716 million in funding for the East-West Center.
  The East-West Center was established in 1960, according to its Web 
site, ``to foster better relations and understanding among the peoples 
of the United States, Asia, and the Pacific Islands through programs of 
cooperative study, training, and research.'' Last year, the Federal 
Government appropriated $23 million to the East-West Center. On top of 
the Federal funds it received, the East-West Center raises money from 
private sources.
  I'm not here to debate the merits of the East-West Center. I'm not 
here to question whether or not the money has been used to do good 
things. What I'm here to do today is to debate and question why this 
program should be considered a priority and receive taxpayer funding 
when we're in a fiscal crisis.
  Make no mistake, we are in a fiscal crisis that threatens not only 
our economic security but our national security. However, you don't 
have to take my word for it. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff,

[[Page 2200]]

has said, ``I think the biggest threat we have to our national security 
is our debt.''

                              {time}  0210

  Erskine Bowles, President Clinton's former Chief of Staff and cochair 
of President Obama's Deficit Commission, has said, ``This debt is like 
a cancer. It is truly going to destroy the country from within.''
  Just how bad is our fiscal situation? Well, I've just run two back-
to-back trillion dollar-plus deficits, and we are on track to run a 
third one. We're spending at levels as a share of the economy not seen 
since World War II. We are borrowing 40 cents on the dollar, driving 
our already $14 trillion in debt even higher.
  Cutting spending is the solution to putting our budget back on a 
sustainable fiscal path. However, my friends on the other side of the 
aisle would have you believe that we do not have to cut spending. This 
just isn't the case. However, you don't have to take my word for it.
  In his written testimony from his recent appearance in front of the 
House Budget Committee, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said, 
``One way or another, fiscal adjustments sufficient to stabilize the 
Federal budget must occur at some point. The question is whether these 
adjustments will take place through a careful and deliberative process 
or whether the needed fiscal adjustments will come as a rapid and 
painful response to a looming or actual fiscal crisis.''
  No doubt we are making tough decisions here today to begin putting 
our budget back on a sustainable fiscal path. Yet, as painful as some 
of these decisions are, it will be more painful for our children and 
grandchildren if we do not get our fiscal house in order. Failing to do 
so will mean that we will be the first generation to leave the next 
with less opportunity and less liberty. Is that the legacy we want to 
leave our children and grandchildren? I think not.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Chaffetz). The gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. GRANGER. I rise to address the gentleman's amendment to eliminate 
funding for the East-West Center. Historically the House has not 
included funding the center in the subcommittee bill, not because the 
center's work is not useful or is wasteful but because of the need to 
address other more important diplomatic and development priorities.
  Strong advocates have urged the House to continue funding in 
conference negotiations. The committee again considered eliminating 
funding in the CR. But we were advised by the center that their 
projected obligations through March of this year exceeded $8 million. 
As a result, the decision was made to continue the center's funding, 
but at half of last year's level to adjust for what was planned to be 
spent.
  Having said that, I share the gentleman's objective, and I'm prepared 
to accept the amendment with the understanding that the $8 million in 
obligations during the CR period will preclude us from eliminating the 
agency entirely.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from American Samoa is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Royce, 
Canseco, and McClintock amendments which seek to eliminate altogether 
any and all funding for the East-West Center.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1, the base bill put forward by the Republicans, 
already cuts the East-West Center from the current $23 million to $10.7 
million. But my friends across the aisle want to eliminate any and all 
funding for this institution.
  While I will agree that we need to cut the Federal budget, I do not 
believe we should carelessly use a machete, a samurai sword or a 
sledgehammer to discard programs that are necessary to protecting U.S. 
interests in this region of the world. The East-West Center was 
established by Federal law of the U.S. Congress in 1960. President 
Eisenhower signed the Mutual Security Act of 1960 which authorized its 
creation only after the State Department conducted a study and reported 
back to Congress about the relevance of establishing the East-West 
Center.
  President John Kennedy also signed an act which appropriated 
additional funding, and every President since then, both Republican and 
Democrat, have done the same. Why? Because the East-West Center 
promotes a better understanding among the peoples and nations of the 
United States, Asia, and the Pacific region, and this understanding is 
critical to our own economic, political, and social interests, 
especially our strategic and military interests in this region of the 
world.
  The Asia Pacific region is the world's most populous region, where 
more than 4 billion people live, currently more than 60 percent of the 
world's population. Two of the three largest economies in the world are 
in the Asia Pacific region.
  Our trade and commercial relations with the Asia Pacific region are 
critical to our own economic interests in this important region.
  Since the East-West Center is not solely funded by the Federal 
Government but also receives the majority of its funding from private 
agencies, individuals, foundations, and corporations, I agree that the 
Federal support can be scaled back, and this has already been done by 
the committee's mark of 50 percent deductions at the urging of this 
institution.
  My friends on the other side want to go further than their own party 
by a total elimination of Federal funding to help in the operations of 
this institution. For the information of my colleagues here, more than 
50,000 people from the Asia Pacific region have participated in East-
West Center programs, including many who currently hold high positions 
of leadership, including heads of government, cabinet members, 
universities, NGO presidents, corporate and media leaders coming as 
eminently as they were participants in this important institution.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the U.S. would do well to keep its seat at this 
table, and for this reason, I ask my colleagues to support the base 
bill and the committee's mark concerning this important institution.
  And I do want to say that while I have the utmost respect for my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they wanted to eliminate 
this institution. We do have an authorizing law that continues to 
provide for the continuation of the activities of this important 
institution that has done many things in promoting and to enhance a 
better relationship between our country and the countries of the Asia 
Pacific region.
  I respectfully request that these amendments not be approved.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, it is sad to see that amendments like this are 
being proposed based on no knowledge nor any serious evaluation of the 
institutions involved.
  Anyone who has been involved with the East-West Center would 
understand that it is exactly the kind of activity that most cost-
effectively promotes U.S. foreign policy and security interests in a 
critically important, fast-growing region of more than 3.5 billion 
people. Since its creation as a national institution 50 years ago, the 
Center has impacted more than 58,000 people in its region.
  It operates our country's largest outreach program to Asia-Pacific 
region's journalists, the largest outreach program to the region's 
teachers, particularly in Muslim countries of Asia, and the only 
sustained U.S. program for engagement with the leaders of Pacific 
island nations. Both presidents Bush met Pacific island leaders through 
the East-West Center.
  The Center is not a foreign aid program, but a public diplomacy 
program. The secret of the Center's effectiveness is that its programs 
bring together Americans with Asia-Pacific counterparts--American 
teachers with Asia and Pacific teachers, American youth leaders with 
their counterparts, etc. This is the very best way to show off American 
values and interests. If the U.S. had created a similar center for the 
Middle East, bringing young Israelis,

[[Page 2201]]

Egyptians, and other Middle Easterners together with Americans for 
cooperative exchange and research at a location on American soil, our 
world may be a little different today. We would not see misguided 
amendments like that offered by Congressman Ron Paul that would 
eliminate funding for important allies like Israel, Egypt, and Jordan.
  It is a hard to imagine a program that is more fiscally conservative. 
The cost is minimal compared to most government programs because the 
Center, because of its size, operates far more efficiently and flexibly 
and because, unlike government departments, it leverages significant 
amounts of non-appropriated sources for its national mission. This 
figure is 40 percent in last year's budget.
  The Center originally was supported fully by the U.S. government and 
at much higher levels of appropriations during the Reagan and Bush 41 
administrations. It has been repositioning itself as a public-private 
partnership. The amendment to zero out its funding would have a 
devastating impact on its ability to continue to increase private 
funding and leverage public funding. It also would have a devastating 
impact on U.S. public diplomacy in East, Southeast, and South Asia and 
the Pacific islands just at a time that other countries, especially 
China, are ramping up their public diplomacy programs in that region 
that is so important to our future.
  Under the successful leadership of Charles Morrison, the East-West 
Center chaired the committee that developed the Hawaii hosting proposal 
for the 2011 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Leaders Summit.
  The Center supports and leads the official APEC Pacific Economic 
Cooperation Council on behalf of the United States. It has provided 
essential research support for several APEC activities, including an 
assessment requested by the APEC Business Advisory Council of the U.S.-
proposed Free Trade Area of Asia and the Pacific and studies in the 
area of energy security. I know that President Morrison and the East-
West Center are integral to a successful U.S. hosting APEC year. This 
Congress needs to continue to support the East-West Center in these 
efforts.
  Mahalo nui loa (thank you very much).
  Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the 
gentleman from Texas.
  This amendment proposes to cut all funding for the East-West Center--
a shortsighted and impulsive measure that takes away from a program 
that has done so much on behalf of our Nation.
  Due to its strategic location half way between the continental U.S. 
and Asia, the East-West Center has served as an unparalleled resource; 
a bridge between the United States and our allies in the Pacific.
  For more than 50 years, it has been working to further diplomatic 
efforts between China, Japan, and other Asian countries through 
collaborations on education and research.
  Finally, Mr. Chair, let us not forget that one of America's biggest 
opportunities will be culminating later this year with the Asian 
Pacific Economic Cooperation Leaders Meeting. The East-West Center will 
serve as the anchor to this meeting.
  For the first time since 1993, the United States will be hosting 
leaders of 20 other member economies. At this event, our Nation is 
poised to showcase our best and brightest, illustrating President 
Obama's goal to out-innovate, out-build, and out-educate our 
competitors. This is our chance to show the world what Americans are 
capable of.
  I believe that there is no better place in America for this than the 
East-West Center. However, if we decide to eliminate this center for 
collaboration between the U.S and Asia, if we take away the mere $10 
million that they require; we are sending a message that rejects our 
diplomatic relationships with Asia, rejects our strides in innovation, 
and rejects our ability to be capable hosts at one of the most 
important meetings of the next 10 years.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Canseco).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CANSECO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 2104.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     each of the following accounts shall be as follows: 
     ``International Commissions, International Boundary and Water 
     Commission, United States and Mexico, Salaries and 
     Expenses'', $43,419,000; ``International Commissions, 
     International Boundary and Water Commission, United States 
     and Mexico, Construction'', $25,286,000; ``International 
     Commissions, American Sections'', $11,852,000; ``Related 
     Programs, The Asia Foundation'', $14,749,000; ``Other 
     Commissions, Commission for the Preservation of America's 
     Heritage Abroad, Salaries and Expenses'', $597,000; ``Other 
     Commissions, United States Commission on International 
     Religious Freedom, Salaries and Expenses'', $4,042,000; 
     ``Other Commissions, Commission on Security and Cooperation 
     in Europe, Salaries and Expenses'', $2,453,000; ``Other 
     Commissions, Congressional-Executive Commission on the 
     People's Republic of China, Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $1,880,000; and ``Other Commissions, United States-China 
     Economic and Security Review Commission'', $3,290,000.
       Sec. 2105.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     each of the following accounts shall be as follows: ``Related 
     Agency, Broadcasting Board of Governors, International 
     Broadcasting Operations'', $689,761,000; and ``Related 
     Agency, Broadcasting Board of Governors, Broadcasting Capital 
     Improvements'', $6,785,000.
       Sec. 2106.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     each of the following accounts shall be as follows: 
     ``Administration of Foreign Affairs, Educational and Cultural 
     Exchange Programs'', $501,347,000; ``Related Programs, 
     National Endowment for Democracy'', $110,920,000, of which 
     $100,000,000 shall be allocated in the traditional and 
     customary manner, including for the core institutes; 
     ``Bilateral Economic Assistance, Independent Agencies, Inter-
     American Foundation'', $20,830,000; and ``Bilateral Economic 
     Assistance, Independent Agencies, African Development 
     Foundation'', $29,757,000.
       Sec. 2107.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     each of the following accounts shall be as follows: ``United 
     States Agency for International Development, Funds 
     Appropriated to the President, Operating Expenses'', 
     $1,267,872,000; ``United States Agency for International 
     Development, Funds Appropriated to the President, Civilian 
     Stabilization Initiative'', $7,000,000; ``United States 
     Agency for International Development, Funds Appropriated to 
     the President, Capital Investment Fund'', $120,777,000; and 
     ``United States Agency for International Development, Funds 
     Appropriated to the President, Office of Inspector General'', 
     $43,710,000.
       Sec. 2108.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     each of the following accounts shall be as follows: 
     ``Bilateral Economic Assistance, Funds Appropriated to the 
     President, Development Assistance'', $1,773,780,000; 
     ``Bilateral Economic Assistance, Funds Appropriated to the 
     President, Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia'', 
     $697,134,000; and ``Bilateral Economic Assistance, 
     Independent Agencies, Millennium Challenge Corporation'', 
     $790,000,000.
       Sec. 2109.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     each of the following accounts shall be as follows: 
     ``Bilateral Economic Assistance, Funds Appropriated to the 
     President, Economic Support Fund'', $5,706,552,000; 
     ``Bilateral Economic Assistance, Funds Appropriated to the 
     President, Democracy Fund'', $112,800,000; ``Department of 
     the Treasury, International Affairs Technical Assistance'', 
     $20,235,000; and ``Department of the Treasury, Debt 
     Restructuring'', $30,055,000.

                              {time}  0220


              Amendment No. 291 Offered by Mr. McClintock

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 324, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 359, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, the Tropical Forest Conservation Act is 
a $20 million-a-year program, and perhaps one of the most outrageous of 
any that I have seen so far. It calls into question any of the claims 
that we can't possibly spare a dollar from this section of the budget.
  Under this program, the United States, staggering under the biggest 
peacetime debt in the Nation's history, a debt so large that the United 
States of America would now be denied entry into the European Union 
because of our excessive debt, nevertheless is paying down the debts of 
developing countries if they do restoration and conservation work in 
their own rainforests. Really?
  The deficit this year alone puts an average family of four on the 
hook for about $20,000 of additional debt that they must repay through 
their future taxes just as surely as if it appeared on their credit 
card, and part of that debt will be used to pay down the debt of 
developing countries if they develop their rainforests.

[[Page 2202]]

  Now, of course if they cut down their rainforests to grow corn, they 
can get American ethanol subsidies, but that's a subject for another 
day.
  History is screaming this warning at us, that countries that bankrupt 
themselves aren't around very long.
  Before we pay down the debt of developing countries, I would like to 
make this modest suggestion: perhaps we ought to tend to our own.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I rise to thank the gentleman for offering 
this amendment, and I am willing to accept the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 2110.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     each of the following accounts shall be as follows: 
     ``Bilateral Economic Assistance, Funds Appropriated to the 
     President, International Disaster Assistance'', $429,739,000; 
     and ``Bilateral Economic Assistance, Funds Appropriated to 
     the President, Transition Initiatives'', $44,635,000.
       Sec. 2111.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     each of the following accounts shall be as follows: 
     ``Bilateral Economic Assistance, Department of State, 
     Migration and Refugee Assistance'', $1,023,178,000; and 
     ``Bilateral Economic Assistance, Department of State, United 
     States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund'', 
     $44,635,000.
       Sec. 2112.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Bilateral Economic Assistance, Independent Agencies, Peace 
     Corps'' shall be $330,799,000.
       Sec. 2113.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     each of the following accounts shall be as follows: 
     ``International Security Assistance, Department of State, 
     Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related 
     Programs'', $740,000,000; and ``International Security 
     Assistance, Department of State, Peacekeeping Operations'', 
     $305,000,000.
       Sec. 2114.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     each of the following accounts shall be as follows: 
     ``International Security Assistance, Funds Appropriated to 
     the President, Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund'', 
     $1,000,000,000, which shall remain available until September 
     30, 2012, and shall be available to the Secretary of State 
     under the terms and conditions provided for this Fund in 
     Public Law 111-32; and ``International Security Assistance, 
     Funds Appropriated to the President, Foreign Military 
     Financing Program'', $5,385,000,000, of which not less than 
     $3,000,000,000 shall be available for grants only for Israel 
     and $1,300,000,000 shall be available for grants only for 
     Egypt and $300,000,000 shall be available for assistance for 
     Jordan: Provided, That the dollar amount in the fourth 
     proviso under the heading ``International Security 
     Assistance, Funds Appropriated to the President, Foreign 
     Military Financing Program'' in division F of Public Law 111-
     117 shall be deemed to be $789,000,000 for the purpose of 
     applying funds appropriated under such heading by this 
     division.
       Sec. 2115.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     each of the following accounts shall be as follows: 
     ``Multilateral Assistance, Funds Appropriated to the 
     President, International Organizations and Programs'', 
     $309,897,000; ``Multilateral Assistance, Funds Appropriated 
     to the President, International Financial Institutions, 
     Global Environment Facility'', $32,020,000; ``Multilateral 
     Assistance, Funds Appropriated to the President, 
     International Financial Institutions, Contribution to the 
     International Development Association'', $942,305,000; 
     ``Multilateral Assistance, Funds Appropriated to the 
     President, International Financial Institutions, Contribution 
     to the Enterprise for the Americas Multilateral Investment 
     Fund'', $20,127,000; ``Multilateral Assistance, Funds 
     Appropriated to the President, International Financial 
     Institutions, Contribution to the African Development Fund'', 
     $134,585,000; and ``Multilateral Assistance, Funds 
     Appropriated to the President, International Financial 
     Institutions, International Fund for Agricultural 
     Development'', $17,926,000.


                 Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Heller

  Mr. HELLER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 326, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $44,935,065)''.
       Page 326, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $4,642,900)''.
       Page 326, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $136,634,225)''.
       Page 326, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,918,415)''.
       Page 326, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $19,514,825)''.
       Page 326, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,599,270)''.
       Page 359, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $211,244,700)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nevada is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HELLER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak.
  Earlier this evening, or I should say last night, I had a tele-town 
hall meeting. I do this once a week. Generally what I do is I ask and 
we talk about what we're doing on the floor today: trying to create 
jobs to reducing the size of our Federal Government. So I open it up 
and I ask people, What would you cut? Or, Send me an email. Go to 
heller.house.gov, hit the prompt button to send me an email. Tell me 
what you would cut out of this Federal Government. And I got, 
obviously, numerous responses, as I'm sure most people in this audience 
would.
  But I have to tell you, at the top of everybody's list, frankly, if 
it's not the top two or three, it's always in the top five, is to cut 
foreign aid. So we have an opportunity to do that today. So what my 
amendment does is it cuts $211,244,700 from the Multilateral Economic 
Assistance Account in the State Foreign Operations section.
  This number is 14.5 percent of the account. And I am asked, What is 
the purpose of the 14.5 percent of this particular account? Well, 14.5 
percent happens to match the State with the highest unemployment in the 
country, and that State happens to be the State of Nevada, the State 
that I am from.
  This money is going to go to debt reduction. And I would like to talk 
about what frankly is being cut in this particular amendment. Some of 
us have heard of these organizations. Most haven't.
  For example, we can go to the Global Environmental Facility, GEF. 
They make grants to help developing countries deal with global 
environmental problems.
  We're going to cut the International Development Association from the 
World Bank. IDA lends concessional rates to low-income countries. What 
is a concessional rate? That means we're just going to take your tax 
dollars, and World Bank is going to actually lend it for less than you 
can go to your own bank to get a loan. So it is kind of a double 
whammy: we're going to take your money, and then we're going to loan it 
for less than you can actually get the loan yourself.
  The Clean Technology Fund seeks to reduce the growth of greenhouse 
gas emissions in developing countries.
  The Strategic Climate Fund seeks to address climate change under the 
auspices of the World Bank.
  We can go through the list, some of them actually quite interesting. 
The International American Development Bank, Enterprise for the 
American Multilateral Investment Fund. I don't know how many people 
have heard of many of these, but this is where your tax dollars go in 
this foreign aid.
  How about the Asian Development Fund? I wonder if some Asian country 
gets a concessional rate, China perhaps, to buy our own government 
securities with.
  The African Development Fund. The International Fund for Agricultural 
Development. We can go on and on. International Organization and 
Programs. International Financial Institutions.
  My point here, Mr. Chairman, is it is not our responsibility to 
create jobs in foreign countries. Our responsibility is to create jobs 
right here at home. And I choose America first. I think that's what our 
constituents are asking: In this process, do you choose America first 
over foreign aid to some of these other countries?
  I choose America first. I choose Nevada first. And I think when our 
Nation is facing some significant budget crisis and many Americans 
needs are still unmet, the fact that Congress continues sending so much 
money overseas is unconscionable, and I believe the Federal Government 
is responsible to Americans before any other country. I support 
reducing foreign spending, and I strongly urge all my colleagues to 
support my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I am willing to accept the amendment.

[[Page 2203]]


  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I understand that it is quite easy in a time of fiscal 
belt tightening to offer an amendment to reduce funding for 
international financial institutions, but I would encourage my 
colleagues to recognize that voting in favor of this amendment has 
serious consequences for U.S. interests.
  The amendment would cut funding to the Asian Development Fund, which 
provides loans and grants to support basic health care, education, 
infrastructure, and economic development resources to frontline 
countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan.

                              {time}  0230

  The International Development Association which provides debt relief 
to developing countries and is supporting an integrated agricultural 
initiative to address the global food crisis.
  The Global Environment Facility, which provides grants and loans to 
preserve some of the most vulnerable habitats in the world.
  The International Fund For Agricultural Development, which provides 
grants and loans to the poorest of the poor to support food security 
programs as a compliment to U.S. Government-funded programs.
  The amendment would undermine the ability of the United States to 
meet its commitment to global debt relief efforts and to countries 
around the world that rely on grants and loans from these institutions 
to stabilize their economies.
  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly opposes this amendment. The 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly opposes this amendment because it 
would impair the ability of U.S. companies to access developing 
markets. The Chamber recognizes that these programs help build reliable 
trading partners for the United States, which in turn creates jobs here 
at home and strengthens our own economy. In light of that fact, it is 
puzzling why the majority would propose these cuts.
  With regard to international organizations, the CR cuts the request 
to below levels enacted under President Bush. This level would result 
in draconian cuts to our contributions to UNICEF, the United Nations 
Development Program, the Montreal Protocol to prevent ozone-depleting 
substances, and a wide range of programs that address counterterrorism 
and security activities, sustainable development, humanitarian needs, 
reduce violence against women, human rights, scientific, environmental, 
and international trade development. This would represent a major step 
back from U.S. engagement in these organizations and dramatically 
impact U.S. national security.
  This cut would harm U.S. support for efforts in international 
development, human rights and environmental areas, as well as send the 
wrong signal to our partners and allies.
  I urge a no vote on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  As my ranking member, Mrs. Lowey from New York pointed out, the 
funding for international operations and programs in the CR is already 
below levels enacted under President Bush. This would cut it further. 
It means reductions to a fund for victims of torture, the Development 
Fund For Women, the U.N. Development Program, as well as two that I 
want to highlight in particular: UNICEF and the Democracy Fund.
  Since its founding in 1946, UNICEF has saved more children's lives 
than any humanitarian organization in the world. UNICEF works in 150 
countries, literally saving children's lives, one of the best 
investments in foreign assistance dollars.
  Through global efforts spearheaded by UNICEF, child mortality rates 
have dropped by a third since 1990. Every year, 8 million children 
under 5 still perish from preventable causes. The funding contributed 
to UNICEF is urgently needed to help save these children.
  UNICEF reaches more than half of the world's children with 
inexpensive immunizations against lethal diseases like measles and 
tetanus. Annually, UNICEF distributes more than 2.6 billion doses of 
vaccines worth more than $600 million. UNICEF is one of the largest 
purchasers of anti-malaria bed nets, distributing 19 million of these 
lifesaving nets in 48 countries.
  Nearly a third of the funding for UNICEF comes from nongovernmental 
sources, businesses, and personal and foundation contributions. UNICEF 
is also a partner with organizations like Rotary International to 
eradicate polio and Kiwanis International to fight iodine deficiency 
disorders.
  UNICEF plays a critical role as a U.S. partner to help children in 
humanitarian crises, whether it is an earthquake in Haiti or flooding 
in Pakistan. It is a lifeline to millions of children caught up in more 
than 36 humanitarian emergencies worldwide, serving as the coordinating 
agency for water and sanitation, child protection, nutrition, and 
education.
  The funding for UNICEF extends the reach of the U.S. Government and 
the American people in saving children from preventable deaths, 
supporting education, fighting HIV/AIDS, and protecting children from 
violence, exploitation, and abuse.
  It is a high-return investment in children and a critical part of our 
international assistance that enjoys the ongoing support of the 
American people. This is just one of the programs that would be 
dramatically cut.
  The Democracy Fund is another that I want to highlight. We have all 
witnessed the marvel of the Tunisian and Egyptian people who have risen 
up against brutal dictators in the name of democracy. The next months 
and years will be crucial as these countries travel the path to 
democracy. We must be able to fund NGOs and other entities to support 
the growth of democracy there and help it become rooted.
  As the world's oldest democracy, we cannot shirk our responsibility 
to foster representative government elsewhere, especially when people 
have taken it upon themselves to cast off the old order.
  The Democracy Fund provides resources for innovative projects that 
support the longstanding bipartisan U.S. foreign policy goals of 
defending human rights and advancing democratic values. Working through 
over 110 implementing partners, in 2010 the Democracy Fund supported 
local groups to promote democracy and human rights.
  Just a few examples: In Yemen, an NGO is working through a 
combination of youth chat radio series, youth leadership trainings, and 
public roundtables and forums to increase public awareness and 
understanding of religious freedom and tolerance.
  In the West Bank, the funding has helped promote tolerance among 
youth by working with teachers and administrators.
  And in the Sudan, in response to widespread violence against women in 
Darfur, the fund supported critical services and critical outreach to 
survivors of gender-based violence.
  Without the Democracy Fund, DRL and the State Department would be 
unable to support efforts to push the Chinese government to more 
actively disclose food and drug safety information, information that 
directly affects the well-being of the American public.
  These are just a few of the essential programs that are covered and 
are cut in the CR and that will be cut further by this amendment. For 
all these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HELLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada will 
be postponed.

[[Page 2204]]

  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 2116. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for each 
     of the following accounts shall be as follows: ``Export and 
     Investment Assistance, Overseas Private Investment 
     Corporation, Noncredit Account'', $47,115,000; ``Export and 
     Investment Assistance, Overseas Private Investment 
     Corporation, Program Account'', $23,310,000; and ``Export and 
     Investment Assistance, Funds Appropriated to the President, 
     Trade and Development Agency'', $49,992,000.
       Sec. 2117. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the amounts 
     included under the heading ``Administration of Foreign 
     Affairs, Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance'' in 
     division F of Public Law 111-117 shall be applied to funds 
     appropriated by this division as follows: by substituting 
     ``$824,239,000'' for ``$876,850,000'' in the first paragraph; 
     and by substituting ``$796,462,000'' for ``$847,300,000'' in 
     the second paragraph.
       (b) Notwithstanding section 1101, the amounts included 
     under the heading ``Administration of Foreign Affairs, 
     Repatriation Loans Program Account'' in division F of Public 
     Law 111-117 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this 
     division as follows: by substituting ``$695,000'' for 
     ``$739,000'' in the first paragraph; and by substituting 
     ``$668,000'' for ``$711,000'' in the second paragraph.
       (c) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level in the second 
     paragraph under the heading ``Bilateral Economic Assistance, 
     Funds Appropriated to the President, Development Credit 
     Authority'' shall be $8,084,000.
       Sec. 2118. Notwithstanding section 1101, the amounts 
     included under the heading ``Bilateral Economic Assistance, 
     Funds Appropriated to the President, Global Health and Child 
     Survival'' in division F of Public Law 111-117 shall be 
     applied to funds appropriated by this division as follows: by 
     substituting in the first paragraph ``$2,149,780,000'' for 
     ``$2,420,000,000''; by substituting in the second paragraph 
     ``$4,845,700,000'' for ``$5,359,000,000'' and 
     ``$600,000,000'' for ``$750,000,000''.
       Sec. 2119. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for each 
     of the following accounts shall be $0: ``Administration of 
     Foreign Affairs, Buying Power Maintenance Account''; 
     ``Bilateral Economic Assistance, Funds Appropriated to the 
     President, Complex Crises Fund''; ``Bilateral Economic 
     Assistance, Funds Appropriated to the President, 
     International Fund for Ireland''; ``Multilateral Assistance, 
     Funds Appropriated to the President, Contribution to the 
     Clean Technology Fund''; ``Multilateral Assistance, Funds 
     Appropriated to the President, Contribution to the Strategic 
     Climate Fund''; and ``Multilateral Assistance, Funds 
     Appropriated to the President, Contribution to the Asian 
     Development Fund''.
       Sec. 2120. (a) Of the unobligated balances available from 
     funds appropriated under the heading ``Export and Investment 
     Assistance, Export-Import Bank of the United States, Subsidy 
     Appropriation'' in the Department of State, Foreign 
     Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2009 
     (division H of Public Law 111-8) and under such heading in 
     prior acts making appropriations for the Department of State, 
     foreign operations, and related programs, $150,000,000 are 
     rescinded.
       (b) Of the unobligated balances from funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available for the Buying Power Maintenance 
     Account, $18,960,000 are rescinded.
       (c) Of the unobligated balances available for the 
     Development Assistance account, as identified by Treasury 
     Appropriation Fund Symbols 7206/111021, $1,000,000 are 
     rescinded.
       (d) Of the unobligated balances available for the 
     Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet 
     Union account, as identified by Treasury Appropriation Fund 
     Symbols 7206/111093, 7207/121093, and 72X1093, $11,700,000 
     are rescinded.
       (e) Of the unobligated balances available for the 
     International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement account, 
     as identified by Treasury Appropriation Fund Symbols, 
     11X1022, 1106/121022, and 191105/111022, $7,183,000 are 
     rescinded.
       Sec. 2121. (a) Notwithstanding section 653(b) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2413(b)), the 
     President shall transmit to Congress the report required 
     under section 653(a) of that Act with respect to the 
     provision of funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this division for the Department of State, foreign 
     operations, and related programs: Provided, That such report 
     shall include a comparison of amounts, by category of 
     assistance, provided or intended to be provided from funds 
     appropriated for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, for each foreign 
     country and international organization.
       (b) Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of 
     this division, each department, agency or organization funded 
     by this title or by division F of Public Law 111-117 shall 
     submit to the Committees on Appropriations an operating plan 
     for such funds that provides details at the program, project, 
     and activity level: Provided, That the report required under 
     subsection (a) shall be considered to have met the 
     requirements of this subsection with respect to funds made 
     available to carry out the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and 
     the Arms Export Control Act: Provided further, That the 
     spending reports required in division F of Public Law 111-117 
     for assistance for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, the Caribbean 
     Basin, Lebanon, Mexico, and Central America, and spending 
     reports required for funds appropriated under the headings 
     ``Diplomatic and Consular Programs'', ``Embassy Security, 
     Construction, and Maintenance'', ``International Narcotics 
     Control and Law Enforcement'', ``Civilian Stabilization 
     Initiative'', and ``Peace Corps'' shall be considered to have 
     met the requirements of this subsection.
       (c) The reports required under subsection (b) shall not be 
     considered as meeting the notification requirements under 
     section 7015 of division F of Public Law 111-117 or under 
     section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
       Sec. 2122. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     division, the dollar amounts under paragraphs (1) through (4) 
     under the heading ``Administration of Foreign Affairs, 
     Diplomatic and Consular Programs'' in division F of Public 
     Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this 
     division: Provided, That the dollar amounts to be derived 
     from fees collected under paragraph (5)(A) under such heading 
     shall be ``$1,702,904'' and ``$505,000'' respectively: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated by this 
     division may be used to support the United States 
     Ambassador's Fund for Cultural Preservation.
       (b) Division F of Public Law 111-117 shall be applied to 
     funds appropriated by this division under the heading 
     ``Development Assistance'' by substituting ``should'' for 
     ``shall'' each place it appears: Provided, That the sixth, 
     seventh and eighth provisos under the heading ``Development 
     Assistance'' in division F of Public Law 111-117 shall not 
     apply to funds appropriated by this title.
       (c) Division F of Public Law 111-117 shall be applied to 
     funds appropriated by this division under the heading 
     ``Economic Support Fund'' by substituting ``should'' for 
     ``shall'' each place it appears in the fourth and sixteenth 
     provisos.
       (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, 
     the following provisions in division F of Public Law 111-117 
     shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division:
       (1) Section 7034(l).
       (2) Section 7042(a), (b)(1), (c), and (d)(1).
       (3) In section 7045:
       (A) Subsections (a) and (b)(2).
       (B) The first sentence of subsection (c).
       (C) The first sentence of subsection (e)(1).
       (D) The first sentence of subsection (f).
       (E) Subsection (h).
       (4) Section 7070(b).
       (5) Section 7071(g)(3).
       (6) The third proviso under the heading ``Administration of 
     Foreign Affairs, Civilian Stabilization Initiative''.
       (7) The fourth proviso under the heading ``Bilateral 
     Economic Assistance, Funds Appropriated to the President, 
     Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia''.
       (e)(1) Notwithstanding the proviso in section 7060 in 
     division F of Public Law 111-117, of the funds appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by this division for the 
     Department of State, foreign operations, and related 
     programs, not more than $440,000,000 may be made available 
     for family planning/reproductive health: Provided, That none 
     of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     division for the Department of State, foreign operations, and 
     related programs may be made available for the United Nations 
     Population Fund: Provided further, That section 7078 of 
     division F of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated by this division.
       (2) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this division for the Department of State, 
     foreign operations, and related programs for population 
     planning activities or other population assistance may be 
     made available to any foreign nongovernmental organization 
     that promotes or performs abortion, except in cases of rape 
     or incest or when the life of the mother would be endangered 
     if the fetus were carried to term.
       (f) Section 7064(a)(1) and (b) of division F of Public Law 
     111-117 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this 
     division by substituting ``should'' for ``shall'' each place 
     it appears.
       (g) Section 7081 of division F of Public Law 111-117 shall 
     not apply to funds appropriated by this division: Provided, 
     That the second proviso of section 7081(d) of division F of 
     Public Law 111-117 is repealed.
       (h) Section 7042 of division F of Public Law 111-117 shall 
     be applied to funds appropriated by this division by 
     substituting ``$552,900,000'' for the dollar amount in 
     subsection (f)(1).
       Sec. 2123. (a) The first proviso under the heading 
     ``Economic Support Fund'' in division F of Public Law 111-117 
     shall be applied to funds appropriated by this division by 
     substituting the following: ``Provided, That of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading, up to $250,000,000 may be 
     provided for assistance for Egypt: Provided further, That any 
     assistance made available to the Government of Egypt shall be 
     provided with the understanding that Egypt will undertake 
     significant economic and democratic reforms that are 
     additional to those that were undertaken in previous fiscal 
     years:''.
       (b) The tenth proviso under the heading ``Economic Support 
     Fund'' in division F of Public Law 111-117 shall be applied 
     to funds appropriated by this division by substituting

[[Page 2205]]

     the following: ``Provided further, That funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this division for assistance for 
     Afghanistan and Pakistan may not be made available for direct 
     government-to-government assistance unless the Secretary of 
     State certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that the 
     relevant implementing agency has been assessed and considered 
     qualified to manage such funds and the Government of the 
     United States and the government of the recipient country 
     have agreed, in writing, to clear and achievable goals and 
     objectives for the use of such funds, and have established 
     mechanisms within each implementing agency to ensure that 
     such funds are used for the purposes for which they were 
     intended:''.
       (c) The second proviso under the heading ``International 
     Security Assistance, Department of State, Peacekeeping 
     Operations'' in division F of Public Law 111-117 shall be 
     applied by substituting the following: ``Provided further, 
     That up to $55,918,000 may be used to pay assessed expenses 
     of international peacekeeping activities in Somalia, except 
     that up to an additional $35,000,000 may be made available 
     for such purpose subject to prior consultation with, and the 
     regular notification procedures of, the Committees on 
     Appropriations:''.
       (d) Section 7034(n) of division F of Public Law 111-117 
     shall be applied to funds appropriated by this division by 
     adding at the end before the period the following: ``: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this division or any other Act making 
     appropriations for the Department of State, foreign 
     operations, and related programs may be used to implement 
     phase 3 of such authority''.
       (e) Section 7034(n) of division F of Public Law 111-117 
     shall be applied to funds appropriated by this division by 
     adding at the end before the period the following: ``: 
     Provided, That not less than $10,000,000 should be 
     transferred and merged with funds available under the heading 
     `Related Agency, Broadcasting Board of Governors, 
     International Broadcasting Operations' to carry out the 
     purposes of this subsection''.
       (f) Section 7042 of division F of Public Law 111-117 shall 
     be applied to funds appropriated by this division by 
     substituting the following for the proviso in subsection 
     (d)(2): ``: Provided, That funds may not be made available 
     for obligation until the Secretary of State determines and 
     reports to the Committees on Appropriations that funds 
     provided are in the national security interest of the United 
     States and provides the Committees on Appropriations a 
     detailed spending plan.''.
       (g) Section 7043 of division F of Public Law 111-117 shall 
     be applied to funds appropriated by this division by 
     substituting the following for subsection (b):
       ``(b) Limitation.--None of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available in title VI of this division under 
     the heading `Export-Import Bank of the United States' may be 
     used by the Export-Import Bank of the United States to 
     provide any new financing (including loans, guarantees, other 
     credits, insurance, and reinsurance) to any person that is 
     subject to sanctions under paragraph (2) or (3) of section 
     5(a) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
     172).''.
       (h) Sections 7061, 7065, 7071(i), and 7087(a) of division F 
     of Public Law 111-117 shall be applied to funds appropriated 
     by this division by substituting ``should'' for ``shall'' 
     each place it appears.
       (i) Section 7071(b) of division F of Public Law 111-117 
     shall be applied to funds appropriated by this division by 
     substituting ``up to $36,500,000 may'' for ``not less than 
     $36,500,000 shall'' in paragraph (2).

                              {time}  0240


           Amendment No. 481 Offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona

  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 334, line 23, insert before the colon the following: 
     ``and that the new Government of Egypt fulfills its 
     commitment to the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty signed on March 
     26, 1979, and to freedom of navigation of the Suez Canal''.

  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I would reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. My amendment calls on the new government of 
Egypt to fulfill its commitment to the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty signed 
on March 26, 1979, and to the freedom of navigation in the Suez Canal.
  For over a quarter of a century, Mr. Chairman, Israel and Egypt have 
chosen to transcend their differences to promote their respective 
national interests. Through hostile times and dramatic regional and 
international changes, Egypt and Israel have maintained a steadfast 
commitment to well-being and the existence of one another.
  The United States now calls upon Egypt to maintain their alliance 
with the State of Israel during these perilous times. Israel has been a 
beacon of democracy even in the midst of experiencing both foreign 
state-sponsored and other omnipresent terrorist attacks, all the while 
being surrounded by those who embrace a radical Islamist agenda and a 
pledge of jihad against the tiny Jewish State. For this reason, I offer 
amendment 481. The continuing resolution states that, ``any assistance 
made available to the government of Egypt shall be provided with the 
understanding that Egypt will undertake significant economic and 
democratic reforms.'' Mr. Chairman, the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty of 
1979 is central to fulfilling that commitment.
  I also feel it important to express my grave concern about the Muslim 
Brotherhood in Egypt and their stance against preserving a peaceful 
relationship with Israel. According to its charter, Mr. Chairman, the 
Muslim Brotherhood seeks to impose Sharia law, restore the Islamic 
caliphate, and conquer non-Muslim or ``infidel'' states.
  Mohamed Badi, the Brotherhood's Supreme Guide, recently pledged the 
Brotherhood would ``continue to raise the banner of jihad'' against the 
Jews. He called the Jews the Brotherhood's ``first and foremost 
enemies.'' Another top Muslim Brotherhood leader, Mohamed Ghanem, said 
to Iran's Al-Alam Arabic language television network that he believed 
Egypt should close the Suez Canal to U.S. warships, and ``the people of 
Egypt should be prepared for war against Israel.'' Mr. Chairman, there 
are now reports that Iranian ships are passing unimpeded through the 
Suez Canal this very night.
  The Obama administration recently said the Muslim Brotherhood is 
largely a secular group which has eschewed violence and has decried al 
Qaeda as a perversion of Islam, and that they have pursued social ends 
and a betterment of the political order in Egypt, and that there is no 
overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence. Mr. Chairman, 
what a preposterous and expressively dangerous statement to make. The 
terrorist group Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and al 
Qaeda itself was catalyzed by elements of the Muslim Brotherhood.
  Mr. Chairman, I am bewildered by what President Obama has done when 
he has called for the Muslim Brotherhood to have a ``seat at the 
table'' in the new Egyptian government. Based on their recent history 
and the statements from their leadership and from their founding 
charter, a ``seat at the table'' for the Brotherhood would be a grave 
threat to any democratic society as well as the Egypt-Israel Peace 
Treaty and the stability indeed of the entire Middle East.
  Mr. Chairman, Israel shares a long and porous border with Egypt, and 
I cannot express how crucial it is for the new government of Egypt to 
honor their peace treaty. I call on the U.S. House of Representatives 
to expect any government of Egypt to do exactly that, and I hope any 
new government of Egypt will remember that America is watching.
  Mr. Chairman, I felt it was important to get these comments on the 
record on this debate night. However, I'm told that due to clause 2 of 
rule XXI a point of order will be raised on my amendment. Therefore, I 
ask unanimous consent to withdraw it at this time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, abortion is always coercive 
for the child in the womb. An unborn baby girl or boy has no say, no 
right of refusal, no means to protest, no veto power whatsoever 
concerning a procedure that violently tears that child's body to pieces 
and effectuates the kill by lethal injection or starvation by RU486. In 
China, that coercion is extended by brute force to all women. Any 
mother caught without explicit authorization to give birth is coerced 
to abort her baby.

[[Page 2206]]

  Since 1979, Mr. Speaker, brothers and sisters have been illegal in 
China as part of the barbaric one child per couple policy. For 30 
years, the United Nations Population Fund has vigorously supported, 
funded, defended, promoted, and even celebrated these massive crimes 
against humanity.
  Under Presidents Reagan, Bush I and Bush--and even 1 year under 
President Clinton--UNFPA was barred from receiving U.S. funding because 
of their shameful support and co-management of China's forced abortion 
policy. My concern this morning is an amendment that had been printed 
in the Record but not offered--at least it has not been offered at this 
setting; I expect we'll see it later--that would compel every American 
taxpayer to furnish $55 million to the UNFPA, an organization that has 
unapologetically stood not with oppressed women but with the oppressors 
of women; an organization that has made the Chinese killing machine 
more efficacious and lethal; an organization that has systematically 
whitewashed and defended these crimes against humanity.
  The UNFPA is not only an essential part of the planning and training 
of the Chinese cadres who run this anti-woman, anti-child program, but 
the UNFPA assists in the implementation of it in several countries as 
well.
  The uncontested facts are these: Any Chinese, Tibetan, or Uyghur 
mother without a birth-allowed certificate is forced to abort. All 
unwed moms are compelled to abort. In what can only be described as a 
``search and destroy mission,'' disabled children are forcibly aborted 
as part of a nationwide eugenics program.
  Each day, Chinese family planning cadres impose huge ``compensation 
fees'' on any woman who lacks permission to give birth or evades 
detection. Many women have their children on the run. Ruinous fines--
from 1 to 10 times the combined annual salaries of both parents, plus 
jail, torture, property confiscation, loss of employment, loss of 
educational opportunities, housing, and health care--are all weapons 
routinely employed by the so-called family planning cadres to ensure 
compliance with the one child per couple policy.
  In denying U.S. funds to the UNFPA in 2008, Deputy Secretary of State 
John Negroponte wrote, ``China's birth limitation program retains 
harshly coercive elements in law and practice, including coercive 
abortion and involuntary sterilization.'' The number two at the State 
Department said it is illegal in almost all provinces for a single mom 
to bear a child. The State Department noted that Chinese law is ``the 
foundation of its coercive policies and practices'' and that the UNFPA 
comports with and adheres to that Chinese law.
  Mr. Chairman, the UNFPA-supported one child per couple policy has led 
to the worst gender disparity in any nation in all of human history. 
Where are the missing girls in China? Dead, Mr. Chairman. Murdered 
because they were female. Systematically destroyed over 30 years by 
sex-selective abortion. Today, there are as many as 100 million missing 
girls in China--gendercide, the evil twin of genocide.
  The social implications of the UNFPA-supported one child per couple 
policy are absolutely staggering. According to the World Health 
Organization, about 500 Chinese women commit suicide every single day. 
China has become a magnet for sex trafficking in large measure because 
of the ``missing girls.'' An estimated 40 million men won't be able to 
find wives by 2020 because for 30 years and counting girls have 
suffered the ultimate gender discrimination--sex-selective abortion.

                              {time}  0250

  A little over a year ago, Mr. Chairman, I convened a congressional 
hearing on China's one-child-per-couple policy--the 27th hearing on 
human rights violations in the PRC that I've chaired.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I had not intended to speak, my colleagues, on this 
issue, but I do feel that my friend, the gentleman, does deserve a 
response to clarify the facts and to talk to this body about why 
funding for UNFPA is so important.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I fervently believe that UNFPA is 
essential to achieving our global health goals. UNFPA's family planning 
and reproductive health activities are key elements of global health, 
and they contribute to the comprehensive strategy of the U.S. for 
sustainable development. The UNFPA improves the reproductive and 
maternal health of women around the world through the implementation of 
effective voluntary--voluntary--family planning policies and programs. 
It is the largest multilateral provider of family planning and 
reproductive health information and services with programs in nearly 
150 countries.
  The U.S. Government's partnership with the UNFPA leverages funds for 
these health programs, including the reduction of maternal mortality, 
the promotion of the human rights of women, including those affected by 
conflict and natural disasters, and it extends the reach of U.S. 
Government support to a number of countries where USAID does not have 
programs.
  UNFPA works with governments to develop and strengthen laws and 
national capacities to promote women's equality, the prevention of 
gender-based violence, including in refugee and conflict situations. 
Improving the health and well-being of populations in other countries, 
especially those of women and children, promotes internal stability and 
social and economic progress.
  I would like to remind my colleagues that the Kemp-Kasten amendment 
prohibits funding for any organization or program which, as determined 
by the President of the United States, supports or participates in the 
management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntarily 
sterilization.
  We oppose China's coercive birth limitation policies. The facts show 
that UNFPA does not support or participate in the management of any 
program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. In fact, 
UNFPA works to eliminate them.
  In 2009, the department concluded, based on the review of available 
facts, that the UNFPA does not engage in these activities. We continue 
to monitor UNFPA's programs. We continue to believe that UNFPA's 
activities in China do not implicate Kemp-Kasten. As part of our due 
diligence, the department sent a team to China to review UNFPA's 
program in June 2010 prior to the UNFPA executive board's renewal of 
the China Country Program.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I will just take a minute, Mr. Chairman, 
because the hour is late.
  The problem with the United Nations Population Fund activities in 
China is that it strictly adheres to Chinese law.
  Chinese law is a one-child-per-couple policy, and it has a direct 
result in the clinics and in the programs that are run in the 
approximately 30 counties that UNFPA oversees or has programs in or 
projects. Each and every one of those adhere to this one-child-per-
couple policy. Yes, they may say you can choose to be sterilized or 
have an IUD insertion, one or the other, but you must have it. It is 
compulsory. It is involuntary. So they enforce the involuntariness, the 
compulsory nature, but they may give a choice as to what method a 
person may be able to follow. That is not voluntary.
  I would also point out that, for 30 years, representatives of the 
UNFPA have said publicly again and again and again that the Chinese 
program is ``totally voluntary.'' Nothing I would submit to my good 
friend and colleague from New York could be further from the truth. 
There was nothing voluntary about this horrific program where women are 
treated like chattel.
  As a Member of Congress, I have held 27 hearings as chairman of the 
Human

[[Page 2207]]

Rights Committee of the Foreign Affairs Committee--27 hearings just on 
China. We heard from numerous women who were forcibly aborting. They 
told the story about how it was told to them--that this was a voluntary 
abortion. They were coerced. They had sessions with cadres who wore 
them down; and over time, they submitted, feeling they had no way to 
fight back.
  I had a woman testify. Her name is Wuijan. She recently got asylum 
right here in the United States. She had a well-founded fear of 
persecution based on the forced abortion policy. A student at a major 
university here, she testified through tears how she was forced to 
abort after being rounded up with other women.
  She said, at the clinic, which was voluntary--all of this is 
voluntary according to the UNFPA--that there were moms crying, rolling 
on the floor. She said, when they killed her baby and severed the 
baby's limbs with scissors and a curet that the nurse actually put a 
foot on her, near the top of her lapel. She looked at the bloody foot 
and broke down, crying. She could not finish her testimony.
  I will provide that to the gentlelady if she would like to see it.
  The UNFPA has enabled these crimes, and they are crimes against 
humanity. At the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, forced abortion was 
properly construed to be a crime against humanity because it was 
employed by the Nazis against Polish women.
  People like Wei Jingsheng and Harry Wu--the great human rights 
activists--have all been very clear that the one-child-per-couple 
policy is one of the worst violations, if not the worst violation, of 
human rights in scope and in magnitude directed against women and, of 
course, against the dead children who are the result.
  The UNFPA is a part of that. They defend it.
  With all due respect to my good friend, this funding of an 
organization that says that this is a voluntary program must cease, 
because they give tangible assistance. I met finally with Pong Peiyon, 
the woman who ran the program. Yes, I was in Beijing on one of my many 
human rights trips there. She said to me over and over again in that 
conversation that the UNFPA is here, and they see no coercion. There is 
no coercion.
  So I thank my friend for yielding. Again, we should direct our moneys 
to other organizations--to NGOs, to USAID. I would also point out that 
a dear colleague went on, as well as some Members on the other side of 
the aisle, about obstetric fistula.
  I want to point out to my friends that I got a bill passed in this 
House back in 2005 that established a fistula repair program for women 
in the developing world. It passed. It failed over in the Senate, but 
it passed.
  I went to Kent Hill, who was then the administrator of health for 
USAID. I said to please take this and administratively put it into 
practice. We now have 35 different programs in 12 countries. Fifteen 
thousand African and Asian women have had fistula repairs as a direct 
result of this program.
  We need to funnel our money into maternal health care and into other 
health care interventions that will aid women, especially those who 
suffer from such terrible things as obstetric fistula.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Let me begin by congratulating the gentleman from New 
Jersey on his program to repair fistulas, which are a great problem for 
many women in the developing world.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I also want to congratulate my friend for the important work that 
you're doing with regard to fistula. I've seen it. I know the suffering 
that women go through, and I thank you for your leadership on this 
issue.

                              {time}  0300

  The hour is late. The gentleman and I have been talking about this 
issue for many, many years, and I'd be delighted to have a further 
discussion, but for the purpose of this debate and the purpose of 
closing the bill for the moment, I just want to close again by making 
it clear. We oppose China's coercive birth limitation policy, and the 
facts show that UNFPA does not support or participate in the management 
of any programs of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. In 
fact, UNFPA works to eliminate them, and I think it's important to 
note, again, that in 150 countries that do not receive bilateral 
support and family planning we have seen some very, very important work 
that actually saves women's lives.
  So I would like to say to the gentleman, as we are closing this 
debate, thank you for your good work. We can agree to disagree on this 
issue, but I think this is such an important program and we have 
provided such invaluable help to women that I would hope that at some 
point we could agree on that.
  I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding, and I thank our 
chairwoman for your important work on this bill.
  Mr. NADLER. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 2124. (a) In General.--Subsections (b) through (d) of 
     this section shall apply to funds appropriated by this 
     division in lieu of section 7076 of division F of Public Law 
     111-117.
       (b) Limitation.--None of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this division under the headings 
     ``Economic Support Fund'' and ``International Narcotics 
     Control and Law Enforcement'' may be obligated for assistance 
     for Afghanistan until the Secretary of State, in consultation 
     with the Administrator of the United States Agency for 
     International Development (USAID), certifies and reports to 
     the Committees on Appropriations the following:
       (1) The Government of Afghanistan is--
       (A) demonstrating a commitment to reduce corruption and 
     improve governance, including by investigating, prosecuting, 
     and sanctioning or removing corrupt officials from office and 
     to implement financial transparency and accountability 
     measures for government institutions and officials (including 
     the Central Bank);
       (B) taking significant steps to facilitate active public 
     participation in governance and oversight; and
       (C) taking credible steps to protect the internationally 
     recognized human rights of Afghan women.
       (2) There is a unified United States Government anti-
     corruption strategy for Afghanistan.
       (3) Funds will be programmed to support and strengthen the 
     capacity of Afghan public and private institutions and 
     entities to reduce corruption and to improve transparency and 
     accountability of national, provincial, and local 
     governments, as outlined in the spending plan submitted to 
     the Committees on Appropriations on October 26, 2010 (CN 10-
     298).
       (4) Representatives of Afghan national, provincial, or 
     local governments, local communities and civil society 
     organizations, as appropriate, will be consulted and 
     participate in the design of programs, projects, and 
     activities, including participation in implementation and 
     oversight, and the development of specific benchmarks to 
     measure progress and outcomes.
       (5) Funds will be used to train and deploy additional 
     United States Government direct-hire personnel to improve 
     monitoring and control of assistance.
       (6) A framework and methodology is being utilized to assess 
     national, provincial, local, and sector level fiduciary risks 
     relating to public financial management of United States 
     Government assistance.
       (c) Assistance and Operations.--
       (1) Funds appropriated under the headings ``Economic 
     Support Fund'' and ``International Narcotics Control and Law 
     Enforcement'' by this division that are available for 
     assistance for Afghanistan--
       (A) shall be made available, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, in a manner that emphasizes the participation of 
     Afghan women, and directly improves the security, economic 
     and social well-being, and political status, and protects the 
     rights of, Afghan women and girls and complies with sections 
     7062 and 7063 of division F of Public Law 111-117, including 
     support for the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, 
     the Afghan Ministry of Women's Affairs, and women-led 
     nongovernmental organizations;
       (B) may be made available for a United States contribution 
     to an internationally-managed fund to support the 
     reconciliation with and disarmament, demobilization and

[[Page 2208]]

     reintegration into Afghan society of former combatants who 
     have renounced violence against the Government of 
     Afghanistan: Provided, That funds may be made available to 
     support reconciliation and reintegration activities only if--
       (i) Afghan women are participating at national, provincial 
     and local levels of government in the design, policy 
     formulation and implementation of the reconciliation or 
     reintegration process, and such process upholds steps taken 
     by the Government of Afghanistan to protect the 
     internationally recognized human rights of Afghan women; and
       (ii) such funds will not be used to support any pardon or 
     immunity from prosecution, or any position in the Government 
     of Afghanistan or security forces, for any leader of an armed 
     group responsible for crimes against humanity, war crimes, or 
     other violations of internationally recognized human rights;
       (C) may be made available as a United States contribution 
     to the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF) unless 
     the Secretary of State determines and reports to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that the World Bank Monitoring 
     Agent of the ARTF is unable to conduct its financial control 
     and audit responsibilities due to restrictions on security 
     personnel by the Government of Afghanistan; and
       (D) may be made available for a United States contribution 
     to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization/International 
     Security Assistance Force Post-Operations Humanitarian Relief 
     Fund.
       (2) Funds appropriated under the headings ``Economic 
     Support Fund'' and ``International Narcotics Control and Law 
     Enforcement'' by this division that are available for 
     assistance for Afghanistan that provide training for foreign 
     police, judicial, and military personnel shall address, where 
     appropriate, gender-based violence.
       (3) The authority contained in section 1102(c) of Public 
     Law 111-32 shall continue in effect during fiscal year 2011 
     and shall apply as if part of this division.
       (4) The Coordinator for Rule of Law at the United States 
     Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan shall be consulted on the use 
     of all funds appropriated by this division for rule of law 
     programs in Afghanistan.
       (5) None of the funds made available by this division may 
     be used by the United States Government to enter into a 
     permanent basing rights agreement between the United States 
     and Afghanistan.
       (6) The Secretary of State, after consultation with the 
     USAID Administrator, shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations not later than 45 days after enactment of this 
     division, and prior to the initial obligation of funds for 
     assistance for Afghanistan, a detailed spending plan for such 
     assistance which shall include clear and achievable goals, 
     benchmarks for measuring progress, and expected results: 
     Provided, That such plan shall not be considered as meeting 
     the notification requirements under section 7015 of division 
     F of Public Law 111-117 or under section 634A of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961.
       (d) Oversight.--(1) The Special Inspector General for 
     Afghanistan Reconstruction, the Inspector General of the 
     Department of State and the Inspector General of USAID, shall 
     jointly develop and submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations within 45 days of enactment of this division a 
     coordinated audit and inspection plan of United States 
     assistance for, and civilian operations in, Afghanistan.
       (2) Of the funds appropriated by this division under the 
     heading ``Economic Support Fund'' for assistance for 
     Afghanistan, $3,000,000 shall be transferred to, and merged 
     with, funds made available under the heading ``Administration 
     of Foreign Affairs, Office of Inspector General'' by this 
     division, for increased oversight of programs in Afghanistan 
     and shall be in addition to funds otherwise available for 
     such purposes: Provided, That $1,500,000 shall be for the 
     activities of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan 
     Reconstruction.
       (3) Of the funds appropriated by this division under the 
     heading ``Economic Support Fund'' for assistance for 
     Afghanistan, $1,500,000 shall be transferred to, and merged 
     with, funds appropriated under the heading ``United States 
     Agency for International Development, Funds Appropriated to 
     the President, Office of Inspector General'' by this division 
     for increased oversight of programs in Afghanistan and shall 
     be in addition to funds otherwise available for such 
     purposes.
       (e) Modification to Prior Provisions.--(1) Section 
     1004(c)(1)(C) of Public Law 111-212 is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(C) taking credible steps to protect the internationally 
     recognized human rights of Afghan women.''.
       (2) Section 1004(d)(1) of Public Law 111-212 is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(1) Afghan women are participating at national, 
     provincial, and local levels of government in the design, 
     policy formulation, and implementation of the reconciliation 
     or reintegration process, and such process upholds steps 
     taken by the Government of Afghanistan to protect the 
     internationally recognized human rights of Afghan women; 
     and''.
       (3) Section 1004(e)(1) of Public Law 111-212 is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(1) based on information available to the Secretary, the 
     Independent Electoral Commission has no members or other 
     employees who participated in, or helped to cover up, acts of 
     fraud in the 2009 presidential election in Afghanistan, and 
     the Electoral Complaints Commission is a genuinely 
     independent body with all the authorities that were invested 
     in it under Afghan law as of December 31, 2009; and''.

 TITLE XII--TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED 
                                AGENCIES

       Sec. 2201. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation 
     Administration, Operations'' shall be $9,523,028,000, of 
     which $4,559,000,000 shall be derived from the Airport and 
     Airway Trust Fund, of which not less than $7,473,299,000 
     shall be for air traffic organization activities and not less 
     than $1,253,020,000 shall be for aviation regulation and 
     certification activities.
       Sec. 2202. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation 
     Administration, Facilities and Equipment'' shall be 
     $2,736,203,000, of which $2,226,203,000 shall remain 
     available through September 30, 2013, and of which 
     $470,000,000 shall remain available through September 30, 
     2011.


                Amendment No. 511 Offered by Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Beginning on page 346, strike line 12 and all that follows 
     through page 348, line 2.
       On page 348, strike line 17 and all that follows through 
     page 351, line 17.

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the continuing resolution under 
consideration today includes very dangerous cuts to key transportation 
programs. This is exactly the wrong thing to do if we want to reduce 
unemployment, create jobs, and grow the economy.
  In a survey released by the American Public Transportation 
Association, 80 percent of private sector businesses surveyed indicated 
that the level of Federal investment in public transportation has a 
large influence on their business revenue. For example, every $10 
million in capital investment in public transportation yields $30 
million, three times, in increased business sales. The Texas 
Transportation Institute's ``2010 Urban Mobility Report'' shows that 
worsening road congestion across the Nation, $134 billion, $134 billion 
a year costs in loss productivity. And when it comes to transit alone, 
every $1 billion invested creates or supports 36,000 jobs.
  Despite the clear link between transportation funding and economic 
recovery, this continuing resolution cuts billions for transit, high-
speed railroads, and other key infrastructure projects. The CR cuts 
over $8 billion from current infrastructure formula programs and 
already-awarded projects, resulting in the loss of over 280,000 jobs 
from the current budget funding levels.
  These proposed cuts to transportation include $4.975 billion in high-
speed and intercity passenger rail grants; $710 million in transit 
capital investment grants; $292 million in FHWA surface transportation 
priorities; $150 million in grants to Amtrak; and $100 million in 
Federal Rail Administration rail safety technology grants.
  This amendment would eliminate these cuts and restore transportation 
funding to their current levels, not any increase for inflation, no 
increase for increased population, no increase for increased work, but 
simply to restore the current levels. We must restore these current 
levels because every dollar we cut reduces $3 in business activity, and 
every $1 billion we cut costs 36,000 jobs in an economy which cannot 
afford to lose tens of thousands of jobs.
  Unfortunately, the underlying bill cuts transportation funding so 
dramatically and other funding so dramatically that it is virtually 
impossible to write an amendment to restore transportation funding to 
current levels even that would be in order under the rules the House 
has adopted without causing great harm to other critical programs. This 
is particularly true since all the transportation funding

[[Page 2209]]

programs and all the Housing and Urban Development programs which are 
in this title are underfunded. So it's almost impossible to say let's 
restore these transportation funds but eliminate other transportation 
or housing funds.
  In fact, this CR is such an irresponsible and reckless document that 
it is almost not worth trying to fix it. The Republicans have seized on 
this idea to cut $100 billion from the current budget, pulling that 
figure arbitrarily out of thin air and without any regard to what it 
could mean for our economy or the services that it prevents. It is a 
dangerous overreach that would be devastating for middle- and working 
class Americans. It would destroy tens, in fact, hundreds of thousands 
of jobs without replacing them and would threaten national security.
  The transportation cuts are a small part of these irresponsible cuts. 
This amendment is a small part of opposing this dangerous continuing 
resolution, and I anticipate unfortunately that my amendment is going 
to be ruled out of order. I hope that's not the case. In a rational 
House, it would not be the case, but I urge my colleagues to support 
the amendment if they have the opportunity to do so, and in order to 
support reasonable transportation funding so as not to decimate this 
economy. If necessary, I urge them to vote against the entire CR.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from Iowa continue to reserve 
his point of order?
  Mr. LATHAM. I would continue to reserve.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate and thank the 
gentleman from New York for the statement that he has just made because 
I think it represents the most rational thing that we could do with the 
transportation section of this legislation. But given the hour and 
understanding that we are not operating under rational rules on this 
issue, I will say only that, that I do congratulate and commend you for 
the statement that you have made, in which I virtually totally concur. 
I might find a word or two to disagree with in the usage there, but I 
concur with it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes a net increase in 
budget authority in the bill.
  The amendment is not in order under section 3(j)(3) of House 
Resolution 5, 112th Congress, which states:
  ``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general 
appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the 
bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments 
proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority 
pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.''
  The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill 
in violation of such section.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order? If not, the Chair will rule.
  The gentleman from Iowa makes a point of order that the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York violates section 3(j)(3) of 
House Resolution 5.
  Section 3(j)(3) establishes a point of order against an amendment 
proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill.
  The Chair has been persuasively guided by an estimate from the chair 
of the Committee on the Budget that the amendment proposes a net 
increase in budget authority in the bill. Therefore, the point of order 
is sustained. The amendment is not in order.

                              {time}  0310

  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 2203.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     each of the following accounts shall be $0: ``Department of 
     Transportation, Office of the Secretary, National 
     Infrastructure Investments''; ``Department of Transportation, 
     Federal Highway Administration, Surface Transportation 
     Priorities''; ``Department of Transportation, Federal Transit 
     Administration, Grants for Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse 
     Gas Reductions''; ``Department of Transportation, Federal 
     Railroad Administration, Railroad Safety Technology 
     Program''; ``Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad 
     Administration, Capital Assistance for High Speed Rail 
     Corridors and Intercity Passenger Rail Service''; 
     ``Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 
     Assistance to Small Shipyards''; and ``Department of 
     Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Grants to the 
     Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority''.
       Sec. 2204.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation 
     Administration, Research, Engineering, and Development'' 
     shall be $146,828,000.
       Sec. 2205.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Transportation, Federal Transit 
     Administration, Capital Investment Grants'' shall be 
     $1,569,092,000.
       Sec. 2206.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad 
     Administration, Rail Line Relocation and Improvement 
     Program'' shall be $15,000,000.
       Sec. 2207.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad 
     Administration, Capital and Debt Service Grants to the 
     National Railroad Passenger Corporation'' shall be 
     $850,000,000.


                Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Sessions

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 348, line 2, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $446,900,000)''.
       Page 359, line 22, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $446,900,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise this morning to offer an amendment 
to H.R. 1 which would decrease the amount the Federal Government 
subsidizes Amtrak by $446,900,000.
  In 2008, the Pew Charitable Trusts Foundation performed a study of 
Amtrak's services. According to that study, the 20 most egregiously 
inefficient train lines run annual deficits between $4.9 million and 
$59.4 million per year, with many operating at a 100 percent loss. My 
amendment would decrease the spending authority to Amtrak by the amount 
equal to those lines' losses.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1997, Congress passed what was referred to as the 
Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act which required that Amtrak operate 
without any Federal assistance after 2002. By the way, that was 8 years 
ago, Mr. Chairman. It has never reached the intended level of self-
sufficiency. It is time that Congress stop supporting these failed rail 
lines. It is important to the taxpayers of this country, Mr. Chairman.
  Instead, by eliminating these very inefficient and seldom used lines, 
Amtrak can focus on its core competency of urban and suburban 
transportation. For example, the Acela line which operates along the 
northeast corridor continually operates in a self-sufficient manner. We 
need to shift Amtrak's focus to the things that it does well, not the 
extremely inefficient long-distance line it fails to operate within the 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, Amtrak has proven to be a money-losing venture that the 
government can no longer sustain and support. In 2008 alone, Amtrak 
lost $1.1 billion. At a time of record debt and deficit, this amendment 
stops wasteful spending and directs the entire $446,900,000 to the 
spending reduction account to help pay down the debt. We must operate 
within some sense of business operation of common sense. I urge my 
colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to reduce Federal 
spending.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill that we have before us 
profoundly limits the transportation options that are available for the 
American people and imposes deep cuts upon the very programs with the 
greatest potential for creating jobs and providing the necessary 
foundation on

[[Page 2210]]

which a strong economic recovery depends.
  The underlying bill terminates, completely defunds the High-Speed 
Intercity Passenger Rail program that was authorized under the PRIIA 
rail safety bill in the fall of 2008 and signed by then President Bush. 
That's 28 months ago. It rescinds those items that were in the Recovery 
Act. In the legislation that was passed in February of 2009, the 
Recovery Act, it rescinds all of the unobligated funds from that 
Recovery Act, and it rescinds in the high-speed rail program the $2.5 
billion of grants that were awarded in September of last year that were 
passed in the December '09 2010 appropriations bill. Those grants were 
awarded but have not yet been obligated.
  It also happens to shut down all of the new funding for light rail 
and commuter rail and bus rapid transit, only providing money for those 
projects already in place that have received full funding grant 
agreements. They have contracts of that sort. There is funding in the 
underlying legislation to do that in the area of the Federal Transit 
Administration. It also cancels all of the so-called TIGER grants which 
were part of the fiscal year 2010 legislation, some $600 million, over 
76 projects in 40 different States which were awarded money from among 
1,000 projects that asked for $20 billion, showing the enormous need 
that was perceived on the part of the country. All of that in the TIGER 
grants in the 2010 budget are matched by local funds. It's not all 
Federal funds, as were the ARRA moneys. But it has to be matched at the 
local level. It's not cookie cutter. It is not ordered by Beltway 
bureaucrats or anything like that. It's projects that grew out of the 
planning and the intent on the part of the States or the cities or the 
regional transit agencies to get good projects done.
  All of these, all of these are job-killing cuts, terminations, and 
rescission, every one that I have mentioned that is done in the 
underlying legislation. All of these are part of the $7 billion 
reduction in transportation construction for transportation and 
infrastructure that have been removed--terminated, rescission, cuts--
that have been removed from our construction industry, which is 
suffering from 30 to 40 percent unemployment. They represent at least 
280,000 jobs, 280,000 man years of work for that construction industry 
suffering from 30 to 40 percent unemployment. And this is at a time 
when bids are coming in at 20 percent below the engineering estimates 
for what they would cost. Exactly the time that we should be doing 
those construction projects, putting those construction projects out to 
bid.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Now I have finally gotten to the amendment of the gentleman from 
Texas. The underlying bill before us actually provides $850 million 
which covers both the debt service for the bonded debt of Amtrak and 
covers capital improvements.

                              {time}  0320

  Now, we also have Amtrak, which was authorized for funding in the 
legislation, the rail safety legislation as signed by President Bush in 
September or October of 2008. For the fiscal year 2011, the 
authorization for debt service and for capital grants, that 
authorization is over $1.3 billion. So the amount that is in this bill, 
which happens to be at $850 million, is $450 million plus, below the 
authorized amount for those items, and actually comes right on the 
enacted number for Amtrak for the same purposes, the debt service and 
the capital grants for new improvements and for improvements to 
whatever it is that is needed for state of good repair and such in 
Amtrak, mostly which is spent on the Northeast Corridor, which is where 
Amtrak owns all the trackage. Most of that capital money is used in 
that kind of a way.
  That money already leads to 1,500 jobs, which will be terminated at 
Amtrak at the $850 million level, and the gentleman's proposal is to 
cut another $446 million below that. That happens to leave us in a 
situation where there is almost no money left for Amtrak to operate, to 
do any capital program for the rest of the year, because they are 
committed to $270 million plus of debt service.
  Therefore, if the gentleman's amendment were adopted, it would take 
$446 million out, leaving only $403 million left in the program. 270 is 
needed for the debt service, and 127 or $128 million has already--it 
changes as the days go on--has already been expended on state of good 
repair, service and improvements in this fiscal year as allowed under 
the CR that we've worked under for now almost 5 months, so that there 
would be virtually no money, less than $5 million left for doing any of 
the kind of improvements, maintenance, the track work, if there are 
bridges that need to be done or anything of that sort.
  So it virtually ends up with leaving them nothing to do for the kind 
of emergencies and anything that would be otherwise planned for the 
rest of the year. Now that, in fact, means then that Amtrak will in 
fact terminate another 1,000 jobs.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I find it very interesting that we are going to 
continue operating the service which costs the money, but if I took the 
money and stopped the service we all of a sudden can't fix all the 
things that you want to fix.
  My gosh, the bottom line is they need to quit operating the service 
and then use it for what the gentleman says they should use the money 
for, of the bridges and the operating of the infrastructure.
  Mr. OLVER. Reclaiming--it wasn't my time. I think we should have been 
trading it through Mr. Nadler.
  But the money is assigned to be used either for the payment for the 
service, the contract for the service itself, or the need for some 
subsidy on the service, which is a very small one, on the operation for 
the Northeast Corridor, if any at all. And the rest of it is assigned 
clearly for debt service and for the capital program which necessarily 
goes on, because if you don't do it and keep up with repairs when they 
are needed, then you end up with ever-growing repairs that put you out 
of business.
  Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, I'd like to just point out, of course 
what the gentleman from Massachusetts says is absolutely correct.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sessions).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 2208.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Maritime Administration, Operations and Training'' shall be 
     $155,750,000, of which $11,240,000 shall remain available 
     until expended for maintenance and repair of training ships 
     at State Maritime Academies; of which $15,000,000 shall 
     remain available until expended for capital improvements at 
     the United States Merchant Marine Academy; of which 
     $59,057,000 shall be available for operations at the United 
     States Merchant Marine Academy; and of which $6,000,000 shall 
     remain available until expended for the reimbursement of 
     overcharged midshipmen fees for academic years 2003-2004 
     through 2008-2009, and such reimbursement shall be the final 
     and conclusive disposition of claims for such overcharges.
       Sec. 2209.  Of the prior year unobligated balances 
     available for ``Department of Transportation, Federal 
     Railroad Administration, Capital Assistance for High Speed 
     Rail Corridors and Intercity Passenger Rail Service'', 
     $2,475,000,000 is rescinded.

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder

[[Page 2211]]

of the bill through page 357, line 22 be considered as read, printed in 
the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Iowa?
  Mr. POLIS. I object.
  The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
  Mr. POLIS. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. I won't take the 5 minutes, but I just wanted to complete 
a couple of comments on Amtrak from the discussion of the last 
amendment.
  That amendment, which has now been passed--I thought it wasn't--on a 
voice vote, but which has been passed subject to a vote on the floor 
presumably tomorrow, if adopted, will, as Mr. Olver said, essentially 
eliminate all capital funding for Amtrak after debt service is taken 
care of, all capital funding.
  Now, the question is raised: Why should we spend money on Amtrak for 
capital funding when it loses money? The gentleman asked that. Well, 
the answer is almost no transportation modality in this country makes 
money. That's why we had to form Amtrak in the first place.
  You look at trucking, for instance. You look at trucking. We support 
the interstate highway system without which the trucks couldn't 
operate. Someone may say, well, the trucks pay diesel fuel taxes; they 
support the highway system. Not really. One 18-wheeler of 70,000 pounds 
does 10,000 times the damage, the wear and tear, the vibration damage 
to a highway as an automobile, yet the trucks don't pay 10,000 times 
the gasoline tax as the automobile driver does. If we asked them to do 
so, trucking would be uneconomic. I'm not suggesting we should, 
obviously, because we need a trucking industry.
  By the same token, we need rail transportation because rail is three 
times as energy efficient per ton mile for freight. It's far more 
energy efficient. I don't have the figure, per passenger. We want to 
decrease our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. We want to have less of 
borrowing money from China to give it to Middle Eastern potentates who 
help fund the other side on the war on terror. So we need more rail. 
The only way we do that is by funding Amtrak, and Amtrak has to put 
money into capital improvements, to a large extent, because for 50 
years there were no capital improvements on the passenger rail system.
  So an amendment like this is totally destructive, because we must 
have in this country a choice, a choice for shippers, a choice for 
people of the modalities of transportation, to make our economy more 
efficient and to make people's lives better so they don't sit on the 
highways in congestion all the time.
  So Amtrak is cheap enough. And for $850 million for the entire 
country, which is much too small, it should have been the $1.3 billion, 
which was the authorized level, we should maintain that level and 
certainly not go--well, we shouldn't have that level. We should have 
$1.3 billion, but the CR is bad enough taking it to 850, which only 
allows a couple hundred million for capital for the balance of the 
year. We certainly shouldn't bring it down essentially to zero by 
adopting the amendment that we just voice voted which will come up to a 
vote on the floor tomorrow.

                              {time}  0330

  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 2210.  Of the prior year unobligated balances 
     available for ``Department of Transportation, Office of the 
     Secretary, National Infrastructure Investments'', 
     $600,000,000 is rescinded.
       Sec. 2211.  Of the funds made available for ``Department of 
     Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Capital 
     Investment Grants'' in division A of Public Law 111-117, 
     $280,000,000 is rescinded.
       Sec. 2212.  Of the prior year unobligated balances 
     available for ``Department of Transportation, Federal 
     Railroad Administration, Railroad Safety Technology 
     Program'', $50,000,000 is rescinded.
       Sec. 2213.  Of the prior year unobligated balances 
     available for ``Department of Transportation, Federal 
     Railroad Administration, Capital Assistance to States--
     Intercity Passenger Rail Service'', $78,423,000 is rescinded.
       Sec. 2214.  Of the prior year unobligated balances 
     available for ``Department of Transportation, Federal Transit 
     Administration, Grants for Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse 
     Gas Reductions'', $75,000,000 is rescinded.
       Sec. 2215.  Notwithstanding section 1101, no funds are 
     provided for activities described in section 122 of title I 
     of division A of Public Law 111-117.
       Sec. 2216.  Notwithstanding section 1101, section 172 of 
     title I of division A of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply 
     to funds appropriated by this division.
       Sec. 2217.  Notwithstanding section 1101, section 186 of 
     title I of division A of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply 
     to fiscal year 2011.
       Sec. 2218.  Notwithstanding section 1101, no funds are 
     provided for activities described in section 195 of title I 
     of division A of Public Law 111-117.
       Sec. 2219. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101 of this 
     division and section 120(a)(5) title I of division A of 
     Public Law 111-117, no obligation limitation for Federal-aid 
     highways for fiscal year 2011 shall be distributed to the 
     following programs: the interstate maintenance discretionary 
     program under section 118(c) of title 23, United States Code; 
     the Transportation, Community, and Systems Preservation 
     program under section 1117 of the Safe, Accountable, 
     Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 
     Users; the Ferry Boats discretionary program under sections 
     129(c) and 147 of title 23, United States Code (except for 
     the funds set aside under section 147(d) of title 23, United 
     States Code); and the delta region transportation development 
     program under section 1308 of the Safe, Accountable, 
     Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 
     Users.
       (b) The obligation limitation reserved under subsection (a) 
     of this section shall be instead distributed as follows: 20 
     percent to the interstate maintenance program authorized 
     under section 119 of title 23, United States Code; 26 percent 
     to the surface transportation program authorized under 
     section 133 of title 23, United States Code; 17 percent to 
     the highway bridge program authorized under section 144 of 
     title 23, United States Code; 5 percent to the highway safety 
     improvement program authorized under section 148 of title 23, 
     United States Code; 7 percent to the congestion mitigation 
     and air quality maintenance program authorized under section 
     149 of title 23; and 25 percent for the national highway 
     system program authorized under section 103 of title 23, 
     United States Code: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall distribute the obligation limitation 
     under subsection (a) of this section to each State in the 
     ratio in which such State is apportioned contract authority 
     for such programs for fiscal year 2011 under section 104 and 
     section 144 of title 23, United States Code.
       Sec. 2220.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Housing and Urban Development, Public and 
     Indian Housing, Tenant-Based Rental Assistance'' shall be 
     $14,080,098,711, to remain available through September 30, 
     2012, shall be available on October 1, 2010 (in addition to 
     the $4,000,000,000 previously appropriated under such heading 
     that became available on October 1, 2010), and an additional 
     $4,000,000,000, to remain available through September 30, 
     2013, shall be available on October 1, 2011: Provided, That 
     of the amounts available for such heading, $16,702,688,117 
     shall be for activities specified in paragraph (1) under such 
     heading of division A of Public Law 111-117, $110,000,000 
     shall be for activities specified in paragraph (2) under such 
     heading in such Public Law, $1,207,410,594 shall be for 
     activities specified in paragraph (3) under such heading in 
     such Public Law, of which $1,157,410,594 shall be used as 
     provided in the first proviso of such paragraph (3), and $0 
     shall be for activities specified in paragraph (6) under such 
     heading of such Public Law.
       Sec. 2221.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing 
     Programs, Project-Based Rental Assistance'' shall be 
     $8,882,328,000, to remain available through September 30, 
     2012, shall be available on October 1, 2010, and an 
     additional $400,000,000, to remain available through 
     September 30, 2013, shall be available on October 1, 2011: 
     Provided, That of the amounts available for such heading, 
     $8,950,000,000 shall be for activities specified in paragraph 
     (1) under such heading of division A of Public Law 111-117 
     and $326,000,000 shall be available for activities specified 
     in paragraph (2) under such heading of such Public Law.
       Sec. 2222.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     each of the following accounts shall be $0: ``Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development, Public and Indian Housing, 
     Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing (HOPE 
     VI)''; ``Department of Housing and Urban Development, Public 
     and

[[Page 2212]]

     Indian Housing, Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grants''; 
     ``Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing 
     Programs, Housing Counseling Assistance''; ``Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development, Housing Programs, Energy 
     Innovation Fund''; and ``Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development, Community Planning and Development, Brownfields 
     Redevelopment''.
       Sec. 2223.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Housing and Urban Development, Public and 
     Indian Housing, Public Housing Operating Fund'' shall be 
     $4,626,000,000.
       Sec. 2224.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Housing and Urban Development, Public and 
     Indian Housing, Public Housing Capital Fund'' shall be 
     $1,428,000,000.
       Sec. 2225.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Housing and Urban Development, Public and 
     Indian Housing, Native American Housing Block Grants'' shall 
     be $500,000,000.
       Sec. 2226.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community 
     Planning and Development, Community Development Fund'' shall 
     be $1,500,000,000:  Provided, That the funds made available 
     under such heading shall be used only for assistance under 
     the community development block grant program that is 
     provided under section 106 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5306), as amended: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this Act may be used for a 
     Sustainable Communities Initiative.
       Sec. 2227.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community 
     Planning and Development, HOME Investment Partnerships 
     Program'' shall be $1,650,000,000.
       Sec. 2228.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Lead 
     Hazard Control and Healthy Homes, Lead Hazard Reduction'' 
     shall be $120,000,000.
       Sec. 2229.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal 
     Housing Administration, Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program 
     Account'' for administrative contract expenses shall be 
     $207,000,000.
       Sec. 2230.  Of the prior year unobligated balances 
     available for ``Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
     Community Planning and Development, Brownfields 
     Redevelopment'', $17,300,000 is rescinded.
       Sec. 2231.  Of the prior year unobligated balances 
     available for ``Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
     Public and Indian Housing, Revitalization of Severely 
     Distressed Public Housing (HOPE VI)'', $198,000,000 is 
     rescinded.
       Sec. 2232.  Of the prior year unobligated balances 
     available for ``Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
     Community Planning and Development, Community Development 
     Fund'', $130,000,000 made available for a Sustainable 
     Communities Initiative is rescinded.
       Sec. 2233.  Of the prior year unobligated balances 
     available for ``Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
     Housing Programs, Energy Innovation Fund'', $49,500,000 is 
     rescinded.
       Sec. 2234.  The heading ``Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development, Management and Administration, Transformation 
     Initiative'' in title II of division A of Public Law 111-117, 
     is amended by striking ``For necessary expenses'' and all 
     that follows through the end of such heading and inserting 
     the following: ``For necessary expenses of information 
     technology modernization including development and deployment 
     of a Next Generation of Voucher Management System and 
     development and deployment of modernized Federal Housing 
     Administration systems, $71,000,000: Provided, That not more 
     than 25 percent of the funds made available for information 
     technology modernization may be obligated until the Secretary 
     of Housing and Urban Development submits to the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations a plan for expenditure 
     that (1) identifies, for each modernization project (A) the 
     functional and performance capabilities to be delivered and 
     the mission benefits to be realized, (B) the estimated 
     lifecycle cost, and (C) key milestones to be met; (2) 
     demonstrates that each modernization project is (A) compliant 
     with the Department's enterprise architecture, (B) being 
     managed in accordance with applicable lifecycle management 
     policies and guidance, (C) subject to the Department's 
     capital planning and investment control requirements, and (D) 
     supported by an adequately staffed project office; and (3) 
     has been reviewed by the Government Accountability Office.''.
       Sec. 2235.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Office of 
     Inspector General, Salaries and Expenses'' shall be 
     $19,350,000.
       Sec. 2236.  No rescission made in this title shall apply to 
     any amount previously designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to a concurrent resolution on 
     the budget or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.
       Sec. 2237.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing 
     Programs, Housing for the Elderly'' shall be $237,700,000: 
     Provided, That none of the funds made available under this 
     heading shall be used for capital advances or project rental 
     assistance contracts.
       Sec. 2238.  Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for 
     ``Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing 
     Programs, Housing for Persons with Disabilities'' shall be 
     $90,036,817: Provided, That none of the funds made available 
     under this heading shall be used for capital advances or 
     project rental assistance contracts: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds shall be used for amendments or renewals of 
     tenant-based assistance contracts entered into prior to 
     fiscal year 2005.

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 357, line 
22 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment 
at any point.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    DIVISION C--STIMULUS RESCISSIONS

       Sec. 3001. (a) There are hereby rescinded all unobligated 
     balances remaining available as of February 11, 2011, of the 
     discretionary appropriations provided by division A of the 
     American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 
     111-5).
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available to Offices of Inspector General and 
     the Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency Board by 
     division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
     2009 (Public Law 111-5).


                 Amendment No. 68 Offered by Mr. Polis

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 357, beginning on line 25, strike ``February 11, 
     2011'' and insert ``September 30, 2011''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to offer this amendment with my 
colleague from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), a strong advocate for 
commonsense policies.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply changes the date by which the 
bill rescinds obligated funds. By moving the date to the end of the 
fiscal year, September 30, it allows for everyone, from local 
government to innovative clean-tech companies, the ability to plan for 
the rest of their fiscal year and not have grants yanked from under 
their feet. We should not change the rules on people in the middle of 
the game. It really calls into question the reliability of the Federal 
Government.
  There are so many grants in the queues of these agencies. And calling 
all funds unobligated after February 11 will be devastating to local 
communities and small businesses that are just looking for long-term 
stability throughout the rest of the fiscal year. Changing the rules 
after the fact is never a strong, good practice.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is pro-business, pro-infrastructure, 
pro-local government, and deserves to be supported. The amendment is 
also fiscally responsible and meets the House budget rules.
  My State of Colorado provides an example as to why this date should 
be changed. Colorado was awarded a $10 million TIGER/TIFIA Challenge 
grant through the Recovery Act that expands one of the most heavily 
used and heavily congested highways in our State, creating jobs, 
fostering economic development, multi-modal transportation, the 
lifeblood of my congressional district and the greater State of 
Colorado. This $10 million investment helps leverage additional funds 
in the area, creating $276 million in employment income and over 7,200 
jobs.
  To date, only $900,000 has been obligated. And because the CR 
rescinds all unobligated funding across the board, without thought to 
details or individual projects, we risk never seeing the remaining $9.1 
million that they were promised. And because of that, they could lose 
$300 million in local funding contingent on the stability provided by 
the TIGER grant.

[[Page 2213]]

  For the businesses and residents in Colorado, this is simply 
ridiculous and just doesn't make sense. How could we rescind a small 
government grant--not an earmark. We have moved away from earmarks, and 
I supported that. But what they get replaced by are grants and merit-
based opportunities for our projects to compete for Federal funds. How 
could we rescind a grant which, through local and State ingenuity, they 
have already leveraged $300 million in local, State, and private 
funding? That is not fiscally responsible.
  I am hopeful that this was merely an oversight by the committee, and 
I hope that they will work with me to address this issue.
  The process to leverage $10 million into $305 million takes time. 
Colorado was awarded the TIGER/TIFIA Challenge grant in February 2010, 
and Colorado and other States were challenged to think bigger and do 
more with less; but Colorado was the only State to accept that 
challenge. Many of the other funds have already been obligated under 
TIFIA. So because they are doing what we wanted them to do, being 
creative and leveraging the capital, unless we make this change they 
could be punished.
  Colorado's U.S. 36 application did not anticipate a TIFIA loan, but 
Colorado and the U.S. 36 embraced the challenge. The application is in, 
and the obligation is expected by September of 2011, consistent with 
the intention of the challenge grant in the first place.
  Mr. Chairman, in addition, my amendment would ensure that the long 
process of applying for a loan guarantee at the Department of Energy--
not a grant, simply a loan in this tight credit market--would not mean 
projects already in the queue would be thrown out. How can we tell a 
private company to spend time and money applying for something, have it 
awarded, and then turn around and take it off the table? That's simply 
bad for business. Similar programs at the World Bank and IMF treat the 
loan authority authorized by Congress as obligated funds once they are 
appropriated. We owe it to our small businesses and local governments 
to provide predictability with regard to Federal funding streams.
  As we move toward grant-based programs, it's critical that people 
trust and believe that the Federal word is good. I believe that these 
provisions in the CR run contrary to that, and I ask my colleagues to 
work with me to address this issue.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1 attempts to save the 
American taxpayer on a number of fronts.
  First, we cut $100 billion from regular government spending. Second, 
we went a step further for the taxpayer by rescinding the remaining 
balances of the failed stimulus bill, about $5 billion if we act now. 
We need to act now to stop any more funds from being spent. The longer 
we wait, the longer we let the administration shop around with the 
taxpayers' hard-earned money.
  Further, we were told that the stimulus bill was the lightning bolt 
that would put America back to work right away. If these funds haven't 
been already obligated, when are the people going back to work? Where 
is the instant impact? Where are the jobs? Unemployment is still over 9 
percent in many areas of the country and upwards of 15 percent in other 
sections. If the funds have not been obligated by now, they probably 
weren't meant to be in the stimulus package.
  Let's save the taxpayers $5 billion today and rescind these funds 
now. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. I want to commend again and congratulate the gentleman 
from Colorado for offering this amendment, and I want to support this 
amendment, though I realize the realities of the situation that we are 
in.
  In the recovery bill--and we could have a long discussion about the 
word ``failure'' of the recovery bill but we won't go into that at this 
time of night--the so-called projects that were ready to go into 
construction right away, those were designated with a termination date. 
The work had to be done by the end of 2010. And those monies that were 
for shovel-ready projects have already been expended completely in the 
process.
  For the longer term investments, of which the high-speed rail program 
and the TIGER grant program were part, those were always intended to go 
farther. Never was it suggested that they could be done and the work 
done that would produce the jobs necessary in less than at least 2011 
and 2012 as well. So what has been proposed for the TIGER grant here, 
and all of the TIGER grants, puts them in quite a different category.
  The gentleman's amendment highlights an example of how the majority's 
rhetoric and political posturing on the continuing resolution come at 
the expense of good policy.
  If you had presented this project that the gentleman from Colorado 
has put forward to a Member on the other side of the aisle, they would 
agree that the use of a $10 million grant to leverage over $200 million 
in non-Federal funds is a perfect example of the potential for public-
private partnerships. But the moment you mention the project genesis 
within the President's Recovery Act, their tune turns to righteous 
condemnation.

                              {time}  0340

  More broadly, there are other projects across the country that would 
be impacted by the rescission's political intent. In particular, 
efforts to address congestion that is choking our transportation 
network through the creation of a 21st-century high-speed rail system 
would be halted in many regions. For example, $110 million to improve 
connections to Amtrak's Northeast Corridor within the Nation's most 
densely populated region is also caught up in the same problem that the 
gentleman from Colorado is talking about. So it would be an entirely 
rational thing to allow the ARRA funds to be implemented until 
September 30, 2011, as has been suggested.
  I support the gentleman's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 3002.  Hereafter, no Federal agency administering 
     funds provided by division A of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5) may provide 
     funding or reimbursement to any entity awarded funds from 
     such Act for the cost associated with physical signage or 
     other advertisement indicating that a project is funded by 
     such Act.

                  DIVISION D--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS


                       spending reduction account

       Sec. 4001. The amount by which each applicable allocation 
     of new budget authority made by the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives under section 
     302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the 
     amount of related proposed new budget authority is as 
     follows:
       (1) Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
     Administration, and Related Agencies, $1,972,000,000.
       (2) Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, 
     $1,405,000,000.
       (3) Defense, $1,500,000,000.
       (4) Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies, 
     $100,000,000.
       (5) Financial Services and General Government, 
     $750,000,000.
       (6) Homeland Security, $1,000,000,000.
       (7) Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, 
     $1,750,000,000.
       (8) Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and 
     Related Agencies, $10,901,000,000.
       (9) Legislative Branch, $100,000,000.
       (10) Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related 
     Agencies, $500,000,000.
       (11) State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, 
     $2,000,000,000.
       (12) Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and 
     Related Agencies, $3,923,000,000.

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do 
now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.

[[Page 2214]]

  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Latham) having assumed the chair, Mr. Chaffetz, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1) making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense and the other departments 
and agencies of the Government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2011, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________